^^^^mci 


^^ 


N  to  191R 


L»'visiofl      BS?-  S^-'i 


MATTHEW'S  SAYINGS  OF  JESUS 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 
CHICAGO.  ILLINOIS 


THE  BAKER  &  TAYLOR  COMPANY 

NEW  TOBE 

THE  J.  K.  GILL  COMPANY 

POBTLANO,  OBEBOH 

THE  CAMBRIDGE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LONDON  AND  EDINBUBSH 

THE  BIARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA 

TOETO,  OSAKA,  KYOTO,  rUEUOEA,  SEHDAI 

THE  MISSION  BOOK  COMPANY 

SUAVSHAI 


4>,. 


l!M  to  !9 

MATTHEW'S  SAYINGS 
OF  JESUS 


THE  NON-MARKAN  COMMON  SOURCE  OF 
MATTHEW  AND  LUKE 


By     y 

GEORGE  DEWITT  CASTOR 

Late  Professor  of  Neiv  Testament  Literature  and  Exegesis 
in  the  Pacific  School  of  Religion 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 
CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 


Copyright  1918  By 
The  University  or  Chicago 


All  Rights  Reserved 


Published  April  1918 


Composed  and  Printed  By 

The  University  of  Chicago  Press 

ChicaKC  Illinois.  U.S.A. 


PREFACE 

The  main  argument  of  this  monograph  was 
read  in  an  address  before  the  Society  of  Biblical 
Literature  and  Exegesis,  December,  1906,  and 
during  the  following  year  was  developed  in  more 
detail  and  presented  as  a  Doctor's  thesis.  In 
offering  it  now  for  publication  the  writer  has  made 
only  a  few  minor  changes.  This  monograph  pre- 
supposes an  acquaintance  with  the  main  features 
of  the  synoptic  problem,  and  can  hope  to  appeal 
only  to  those  New  Testament  students  who  are 
interested  in  the  Gospels  as  historical  sources.  The 
great  difference  of  opinion  existing  among  scholars 
regarding  the  non-Markan  common  material  of 
Matthew  and  Luke  is  sufficient  justification  for 
further  discussion  of  the  subject.  Any  real  con- 
tribution toward  the  solution  of  this  baffling  prob- 
lem is  sure  to  be  welcomed.  The  writer,  therefore, 
in  presenting  the  results  of  his  study  can  only  hope 
that  scholars  will  find  here  something  worthy  of 
their  consideration.  Every  page  will  show  how 
dependent  he  has  been  on  the  many  who  have 


vi  Preface 

labored  in  this  field,  but  his  especial  gratitude  is  due 
to  Professor  Benjamin  W.  Bacon,  Professor  Charles 
F.  Kent,  and  Professor  Shirley  J.  Case  for  their 
encouragement  and  suggestions. 

George  D.  Castor 

Berkeley,  Cal. 


POSTSCRIPT 

It  has  been  a  great  pleasure  to  have  the  privilege 
of  seeing  through  the  press  the  work  of  my  friend 
and  former  classmate,  Professor  Castor,  whose 
promising  career  was  cut  short  by  a  tragic  accident 
in  the  summer  of  191 2.  At  that  time  his  manu- 
script was  in  final  shape  for  printing,  and  it  is  now 
published  exactly  as  left  by  the  author  at  the 
moment  of  his  untimely  death.  Regrettable  as  is 
the  delay  in  publication,  the  value  of  the  book  is 
not  thereby  appreciably  impaired.  In  the  mean- 
time no  treatise  has  appeared  rendering  Professor 
Castor's  discussion  superfluous,  nor  has  the  impor- 
tance of  his  contribution  to  scholarly  discussion  of 
the  synoptic -problem  diminished.  Students  o(  the 
subject  will  welcome  this  fresh  and  vigorous  treat- 
ment of  a  very  perplexing  theme. 

Shirley  Jackson  Case 

University  of  Chicago 
March  16,  1918 


Vll 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Introduction  by  Professor  Benjamin  W.  Bacon       i 

CHAPTER 

I.  Inferences  from  Matthew's  and  Luke's 
Use  of  the  Source,  Mark 7 

II.  Literary    Study    of    All    the     Common 
Material  in  Sections 19 

III.  The   Sequence   of  Parallel  Sections  in 
Matthew  and  Luke 120 

IV.  Unity  and  Completeness  of  the  Common 
Material  in  Matthew  and  Luke     .     .     .     140 

V.  Relation  of  the  Common  Source  to  the 
Independent  Material  of  Luke       .     .     .     162 

VI.  Relation  of  the  Common  Source  to  the 

Independent  Material  of  Matthew     .     .     182 

VII.  Relation  of  the  Common  Source  to  Mark    189 

VIII.  The    Apostolic    Origin    of    the    Common 

Source 208 

IX.  Matthew's   Sayings   of  Jesus  as   Recon- 
structed     217 


IX 


INTRODUCTION 

No  more  fascinating  problem  exists  for  the  stu- 
dent of  the  life  of  Christ  than  the  reconstruction  of 
that  primitive  document  which  modern  criticism 
has  proved  to  underHe  our  Gospels  of  Matthew 
and  Luke;  for  such  is  the  necessary  source  of 
the  elements  which  these  Gospels  coincidently 
add  to  Mark. 

A  century's  tireless  scrutiny  of  the  interrelation 
of  our  three  interdependent  Gospels  issues,  we 
are  now  assured  by  many  writers,  in  but  one  surely 
established  result:  Our  Matthew  and  Luke  have 
been  framed  upon  our  Mark,  transcribing  from  it 
their  main  outline  of  the  story  of  Jesus.  So  far  as 
narrative  of  the  ministry  is  concerned,  scarcely 
any  other  document  seems  in  their  time  to  have 
come  into  serious  consideration  besides  that  which 
earliest  tradition  pronounced  a  record  of  the 
preaching  of  Peter. 

This  is  a  result  of  immense  and  far-reaching  im- 
portance. But  until  supplemented  by  the  assur- 
ance that  Matthew  and  Luke  have  done  this  work 


2  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

independently  we  have  no  guaranty  that  the  non- 
Markan  elements  wherein  they  coincide  are  not 
drawn  by  one  from  the  other,  or  by  both  from  an 
indefinite  number  of  sources,  oral  or  written.  This 
second  step — the  mutual  independence  of  Matthew 
and  Luke — has  been  made  probable  by  many. 
Critics  point  among  other  things  to  the  utter  lack 
of  relation  displayed  in  the  opening  and  closing 
chapters  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  each  toward  the 
other,  and  the  completely  different  disposal  of 
their  common  non-Markan  or  *' double-tradition" 
material,  which  it  is  now  usual  to  designate  "Q.'* 
To  the  present  writer,  however,  the  probability 
seems  to  be  carried  to  the  point  of  real  demonstra- 
tion first  in  Wernle's  comparison  in  his  Synoptische 
Frage  of  the  treatment  of  Mark  by  Matthew  and 
Luke,  respectively.  The  fact  established  by 
Wernle  that  not  one  probable  instance  can  be 
shown  throughout  the  material  thus  employed 
(including  as  it  does  practically  the  entire  Gospel 
of  Mark)  wherein  either  of  the  later  evangeUsts 
seems  to  have  been  influenced  in  his  modifications 
by  the  other,  adds  the  capstone  to  the  edifice  of  the 
so-called  "two-document"  theory. 


Introduction  3 

On  the  basis  of  this  presumption  that  Matthew 
and  Luke  are  mutually  independent,  and  hence 
in  their  coincident  supplements  to  Mark  were 
drawing  in  the  main  from  a  common  source, 
attempts  have  repeatedly  been  made  to  reconstruct 
it.  Results  have  on  the  whole  been  disappointing. 
The  process  and  the  proof  are  in  the  main  dictated 
by  the  conditions  of  the  case.  The  Mark  element 
must  be  subtracted  on  both  sides,  and  the 
remainder,  so  far  as  common  to  Matthew  and 
Luke,  must  be  scrutinized  for  evidences  of  organic 
unity.  The  non-Markan  remainder  is  indeed  in 
large  part  coincident,  and  this  Q  element  does  turn 
out  to  be  almost  wholly  of  the  teaching  or  dis- 
course type  rather  than  narrative.  This  is  sup- 
posed to  corroborate  an  alleged  ^'tradition"  of 
Papias  of  an  apostohc  compilation  of  ^'oracles." 
But  Papias  has  no  such  *  tradition."  He  merely 
states  that  the  "oracles"  which  he  proposed  to 
"interpret"  are  to  be  found  in  Matthew  in  Greek 
translation.  Moreover,  the  process  of  reconstruc- 
tion is  complicated  by  the  possible  elimination  of 
the  narrative  elements  of  Q  in  the  process  of  sub- 
tracting Mark;  for  Mark  also  may  have  used  the 


4  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

same  Q  source.  Furthermore,  none  of  the  many 
reconstructions  has  in  point  of  fact  displayed  those 
evidences  of  organic  unity  which  would  justify  the 
critic  in  declaring :  This  is  manifestly  a  single  com- 
position, constructed  with  a  single  consistent  plan 
and  purpose,  and  from  definable  premises  and 
points  of  view.  On  the  contrary,  Wernle  feels 
compelled  to  set  off  from  Q  the  opening  sections 
of  the  reconstructed  work,  which  relate  to  the 
Baptist  and  his  preaching  and  to  the  baptism  and 
temptation  of  Jesus  as  a  narrative  introduction. 
He  regards  this  and  the  story  of  the  centurion's 
servant  as  later  additions,  because  their  more 
narrative  character  seems  to  differentiate  them 
from  the  rest  of  Q,  They  seem,  therefore,  to 
Wernle  to  fall  outside  the  limits  of  a  compilation  of 
the  " oracles."  Resch  sees  so  little  coherence  in  the 
results  of  his  predecessor  Wendt  as  to  pronounce 
them  ^'a  heap  of  interesting  ruins."  Harnack's 
results  are  certainly  not  more  coherent. 

Most  disappointing  of  all,  that  correspondence 
of  the  results  of  criticism  with  (alleged)  ancient 
tradition  which  began  so  promisingly  with  the  dis- 
course content  of  Q  has  failed  to  meet  further  expec- 
tations.    Matthew,  which  on  this  theory  should 


Introduction  5 

give  evidence  in  its  fundamental  structure  of  an 
underlying  Logia  source,  is  less  inclined  than 
Luke  to  prefer  the  non-Markan  source.  Hawkins* 
indication  of  Matthew's  fivefold  division  through 
the  formula  koI  eyevero  ore  ereXeaev  6  'lirjaovs  tovs 
\6yovs  TovTovs,  interesting  as  evidence  of  the  com- 
piler's ideal,  leads  upon  further  scrutiny  to  the 
undeniable  result  that  all  five  of  the  great  dis- 
courses save  the  first  are  constructed  on  the  basis 
of  Mark.  Again,  the  language  of  Q  was  certainly 
neither  Hebrew  nor  Aramaic.  Like  our  own  Gos- 
pels, it  has  traces  of  a  Semitic  original  for  its  ele- 
ments; but  the  compilation  itself  as  used  by 
Matthew  and  Luke  was  Greek.  Finally,  there 
is  nothing  to  indicate  for  it  a  connection  with 
Matthew,  or  indeed  with  any  apostle.  The  whole 
identification  Q  =  Papias'  Logia  thus  breaks  down 
entirely. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  was  unavoidable 
that  scholarly  effort  should  be  reconcentrated  on 
the  problem.  Methods  must  be  perfected,  results 
more  minutely  scrutinized.  Recently  Harnack 
brings  to  bear  upon  it  all  his  critical  acumen,  all 
his  experience  as  a  historian  and  expert  in  early 
Christian  literature.    The  problem  is  destined  to  be 


6  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

solved,  and  by  the  method  which  more  and  more 
in  our  day  is  solving  the  great  problems  of 
common  interest — the  independent  co-operation  of 
many  workers. 

For  the  competence  of  Professor  Castor  to  under- 
take this  intricate  task,  even  though  the  results  of 
his  years  of  labor  were  set  down  too  soon  after  the 
publication  of  Harnack's  able  and  elaborate  treat- 
ment to  permit  employment  of  it,  the  work  itself 
gives  ample  evidence.  The  reader  will  not  need  to 
be  assured  of  Professor  Castor's  scholarly  spirit, 
nor  of  his  many  years  of  schooling  for  his  task  in  the 
best  university  training  at  home  and  abroad.  So 
far  as  a  former  teacher's  words  can  properly  aim 
at  more  than  an  honorary  function,  they  must 
express  the  sincere  conviction  that  Professor  Castor 
has  something  of  value  to  say  whereby  the  solu- 
tion of  this  vital  problem  of  criticism  is  really  pro- 
moted. By  the  co-operation  of  many  thus  minded 
have  the  triumphs  of  critical  research  been  achieved 
in  the  past.  By  similar  co-operation  this  para- 
mount problem  of  gospel  criticism  is  also  destined 

to  be  solved.  ^^  ,,,    -r, 

Benjamin  W.  Bacon 

Yale  University 


CHAPTER  I 

INFERENCES   FROM   MATTHEW'S   AND   LUKE'S 
USE  OF  THE  SOURCE,  MARK 

Proceeding  on  the  principle  that  we  ought  to 
argue  from  the  better  to  the  less  known,  before 
taking  up  the  question  of  a  second  source  at  all  we 
should  study  the  use  which  Matthew  and  Luke 
make  of  Mark.  It  is  not  often  that  we  have  such 
an  opportunity  to  learn  the  methods  of  compilers 
whose  work  we  would  investigate.  That  Matthew 
and  Luke  both  used  Mark  in  some  form  not  essen- 
tially different  from  the  present  Gospel  is  one  of  the 
assured  results  of  modern  criticism.' 

Considering  Luke  first,  the  following  charac- 
teristics of  his  use  of  Mark  are  significant  for  our 
purpose.  His  editorial  work  is  not  a  use  of  mere 
scissors  and  paste;  the  text  of  Mark  is  freely 
revised,  and  even  in  the  words  of  Jesus  little  care  is 

*  The  evidence  for  this  has  nowhere  been  more  convincingly 
presented  than  by  Ernest  DeWitt  Burton  in  Some  Principles 
of  Literary  Criticism  and  Their  Application  to  the  Synoptic 
Problem. 


8  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

exercised  to  preserve  the  language  of  Mark.'  The 
changes  Luke  makes  are  not  only  linguistic — he 
frequently  adds  his  own  comments  and  interpre- 
tations— but  the  purpose  of  such  changes  is  prac- 
tical and  not  dogmatic.  Again,  Mark  is  seldom 
combined  with  other  sources,  at  least  not  before 
the  Passion  narratives.  The  account  of  the  rejec- 
tion at  Nazareth  and  the  call  of  the  first  disciples 
are  the  only  clear  cases,  and  there  little  more  than  a 
trace  of  Mark's  influence  is  discernible.  Surpris- 
ingly few  changes  are  made  in  the  order  of  Mark.^ 
The  few  which  are  made  only  show  that  the  author's 
adherence  to  Mark's  order  is  not  due  to  any  special 
reverence  for  it,  but  rather  to  his  general  method 
of  using  sources.  Material  foreign  to  Mark  is 
practically  all  gathered  into  two  compact  groups 
(6:20 — 8:3;  9:51 — 18:14).  Without  entering 
into  the  problem  of  Luke's  one  considerable 
omission  from  Mark's  account,  Mark  6:45 — 8:26, 

*  Cf.  Luke  5:36-39  with  Mark  2:21,  22  and  Luke  8:11-15 
with  Mark  4:14-20.  In  both  cases  the  comparison  shows,  not 
two  sources,  but  an  interpretation  of  Mark  by  Luke.  They 
illustrate  how  freely  at  times  he  changes  Mark. 

"  Wernle,  Die  synoptische  Frage,  p.  7,  counts  seven  changes  in 
order;  3:195.;  4:i6flF.;  5:1  ff.;  6:12-16;  8:19-21;  22:15-20; 
22:66-71. 


Matthew^s  and  Luke's  Use  of  Mark  9 

we  notice  that  he  is  inclined  to  omit  matters  of 
merely  Jewish  interest,  as  the  account  of  John  the 
Baptist's  death, ^  or  what  might  trouble  his  readers, 
as  Jesus'  reproof  of  Peter.  Luke's  omissions  from 
Mark  with  the  one  exception  are  easily  accounted 
for.  In  nine  instances^  Luke  abandons  Mark  for  a 
variant  account,  and  two  incidents  of  his  great 
omission  (Mark  8:11-13;  8:14-21)  are  paralleled 
in  his  other  material.  In  seven  of  the  total  eleven 
instances  the  variant  account  is  one  which  Matthew 
and  Luke  have  in  common.  A  comparison  with 
Matthew  shows  that  where  there  are  two  parallel 
accounts,  one  in  Mark  and  the  other  in  that  ma- 
terial which  Luke  has  in  common  with  Matthew 
alone,  he  seems  to  show  a  preference  for  the  latter. 
Luke  seeks  to  avoid  duplicates,  but  has  not  always 
succeeded.  We  shall  now  be  prepared  to  find  that 
Luke  changes  freely  the  language  of  his  other  source 
common  to  Matthew,  makes  his  own  editorial 
additions  and  interpretations,  but  holds  closely  to 
the  order  which  he  finds.     He  will  omit  what  would 

*  Possibly  Luke's  omission  here  is  also  due  to  better  infor- 
mation. 

'Mark  3:22-30;  4:30-23;  9:42;  9:50;   10:2-12;   10:35-45; 
11:12-14,  20-32;    12:28-34;    14:3-9- 


lo  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

be  uninteresting  or  displeasing  to  his  readers,  but, 
if  anything,  we  shall  expect  him  to  be  more  faith- 
ful in  preserving  this  other  source  than  in  his  use 
of  Mark. 

Turning  to  Matthew,  we  notice  that  here  there 
are  more  sayings  of  Jesus  retained  in  the  language 
of  Mark,*  and  more  similarity  throughout  in  the 
vocabulary,  but  in  the  great  majority  of  cases  here, 
as  in  Luke,  Mark's  wording  is  freely  changed.  In 
thought  also  Matthew  adheres  more  closely  to 
Mark  than  Luke  does,  but,  like  the  third  evangelist, 
he  adds  his  own  reflections  and  makes  his  own 
adaptations.  On  the  other  hand,  changes  in  the 
order  are  more  frequent  in  Matthew,  and  these 
changes  seem  due  to  a  desire  for  more  systematic 
grouping.  Again,  where  Luke  would  choose  be- 
tween sources  Matthew  usually  combines  them. 
Such  combinations  are  frequent.  Jesus'  defense 
against  the  Beelzebul  charge  is  an  excellent  passage 
for  studying  Matthew's  method  in  weaving  variant 
accounts  together.    Matthew  has  twice^  as  many 

'  Wemie,  pp.  ii,  130,  counts  nine  instances  in  Matt.,  four  in 
Luke;  one  is  surprised  that  there  are  so  few. 

"  Hawkins,  Horae  Synopticae,  pp.  64-87,  counts  ten  in  Luke, 
twenty-two  in  Matt, 


Matthew's  and  Luke^s  Use  of  Mark        ii 

doublets  as  Luke.  Where  the  third  evangelist  has 
a  preference  for  their  other  common  source,  the 
first  regularly  prefers  Mark.  This  tendency  to 
combine,  and  closer  adherence  to  Mark,  is  the  most 
striking  difference  between  the  two  Gospels,  as  far 
as  we  are  concerned.  His  preference  for  Mark  is 
probably  one  reason  why  Matthew  omits  so  little 
from  that  source.  The  few  omissions  he  does  make 
show  that  he  is  influenced  by  the  value  of  the 
material  for  teaching  purposes.  Judging,  then, 
from  Matthew's  use  of  Mark,  we  shall  expect  him  to 
be  closer  to  his  source  in  language  than  Luke,  with 
fewer  editorial  changes  or  additions,  but  with  more 
freedom  in  order.  His  tendency  toward  system- 
atic arrangement  and  fondness  for  combination 
will  naturally  have  a  wider  scope  in  groups  of  say- 
ings than  in  narratives.  He  will  not  be  likely  to 
omit  much  that  is  significant  as  teaching.  On  the 
other  hand,  Matthew's  constant  preference  for 
Mark  to  his  other  source  is  always  to  be  kept  in 
mind,  qualifying  what  we  have  just  said.  In  this 
connection  the  conclusion  Sir  John  Hawkins 
reached  in  a  purely  linguistic  investigation  is 
valuable:    ''It  follows  therefore  that  in  Matthew 


12  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

the  characteristic  expressions  are  used  with  con- 
siderably more  freedom  and  abundance  in  the 
presumably  Logian  portion  than  in  the  presumably 
Markan;  while  in  Luke  they  are  used  a  little  less 
freely  and  abundantly  in  the  presumably  Logian 
than  in  the  presumably  Markan  portions."^ 

Our  examination  of  the  editorial  use  which 
Matthew  and  Luke  make  of  Mark  is  not  altogether 
encouraging  to  the  student  who  would  reconstruct 
any  other  source  used  by  these  evangelists.  ^*We 
see  clearly  enough,"  says  F.  C.  Burkitt,^  "that  we 
could  not  have  reconstructed  the  Gospel  according 
to  St.  Mark  out  of  the  other  two  Synoptic  Gospels, 
although  between  them  nearly  all  Mark  has  been 
incorporated  by  Matthew  and  Luke.  How  futile, 
therefore,  it  is  to  attempt  to  reconstruct  those 
other  literary  sources  which  seem  to  have  been  used 
by  Matthew  and  Luke,  but  have  not  been  inde- 
pendently preserved!"  Some  of  the  most  impor- 
tant characteristics  of  Mark,  both  in  literary 
quality  and  in  subject-matter,  have  entirely  dis- 

^  Horae  SynopUcae,  p.  91.  Sharman's  The  Teaching  of  Jesus 
about  the  Future,  pp.  5,  9,  gives  independent  support  to  these 
summaries  of  editorial  principles. 

'  The  Gospel  History  and  Its  Transmission y  p.  17. 


Matthew^s  and  Luke^s  Use  of  Mark         13 

appeared  from  Matthew  and  Luke.  These  evan- 
gelists have  put  their  own  stamp  upon  their 
material.  And  yet  the  hope  for  the  reconstruction 
of  a  second  common  source  is  not  so  desperate  as 
might  be  thought.  In  the  first  place,  we  have  the 
source,  Mark,  to  use  as  a  guide  in  eliminating  the 
editorial  work  of  the  evangelists.  Again,  with 
Mark  before  us  we  can  study  the  remaining  com- 
mon material  by  itself.  It  is  at  least  possible  that 
we  shall  find  there  a  literary  resemblance,  a  com- 
mon sequence,  a  unity,  and  a  completeness  that 
will  assure  us  of  a  single  source  which  we  may 
know  in  part  even  if  we  cannot  restore  it  in  detail. 
Bearing  witness  to  the  presence  of  such  evidence 
is  the  work  of  prominent  scholars  like  Wellhausen 
and  Harnack,  and  they  are  only  two  among  many. 
The  general  character  of  the  non-Markan  common 
material  also  offers  hope;  we  shall  find  that  it 
consists  largely  of  sayings  of  Jesus  rather  than 
narrative,  and  we  have  a  right  to  expect  from  the 
evangelists  a  closer  adherence  to  their  source  in 
what  they  recognized  as  words  of  the  Master. 

One  must  be  impressed  with  the  number  of 
verses  in  the  non-Markan  common  material  where 


14  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

Matthew  and  Luke  agree  verbally.  The  following 
verses  are  practically  identical  in  the  two  accounts ; 
only  slight  changes  in  a  word  here  and  there  can 
be  found: 

Matt.  3:7&-io,  i2=Luke    S'.jb-g,  17 
7:3-5=  6:41,42 

8:8-10=  7:66-9 

11:36-11,  16-19=  7-19^,  22-28,  31-35 
8:19-22=  9:57-60^ 

9:37,38=  10:2 

io:i6a=  10:3 

10:15  (=11:24)  11:21-23(1=  10:12-15 

11:256-27=  10:21,  22 

13:17=  10:24 

7:7-11=  11:9-11,13 

12:266-28,  30=  11:186,  19,  20,  23 

12:43-45=  11:24-26 

12:41,42=  11:32,31 

6:22=  ii:34a(?) 

10:266,280,30,31=  12:2,40,7 

6:21,25-33=  12:22-31,34 

24:43-51=  12:39,40,42-46 

13:33=  13:20,21 

23:37-39=  13:34,35 

6:24=  16:13 

24:386,390,28=  17:27,376 

This  makes  a  total  of  seventy-five  verses  where 
the  agreement  is  long  enough  to  be  measured  by 
sentences.    To  this  we  should  add  the  list  of 


.     Matthew* s  and  Luke^s  Use  of  Mark         15 

striking  words  and  short  phrases,  common  to  both 
Gospels  in  this  material,  which  is  given  by  Hawkins, 
Horae  Synopticae,  pp.  43  ff .  This  verbal  agree- 
ment becomes  very  significant  when  we  compare 
Matthew  and  Luke  in  the  Markan  material.  No- 
where there  do  we  find  such  extended  agreements 
as  here.  In  all  those  portions  dependent  on  Mark 
up  to  the  entrance  into  Jerusalem,  only  in  the 
following  sixteen  verses  can  the  agreement  be  com- 
pared with  that  of  the  other  common  material: 

Matt.  8:26,  3,  46= Luke    5:126,  13,  14& 


9:5,6= 

5:23, 24 

9:12  = 

5:31 

9:156= 

9:35^^ 

12:4= 

6:4 

12:8= 

6:5 

9:206= 

8:44a 

13:36,4= 

8:5 

14:196= 

9:16 

16:216,  24,  25= 

9:226, 23, 24 

19:14= 

18:16 

There  is  almost  five  times  as  much  of  such  resem- 
blance in  the  non-Markan  common  material  as  in 
the  first  ten  chapters  of  Mark ;  and  yet  the  sections 
in  which  that  likeness  is  found  do  not  bulk  as 
large  as  these  ten  chapters.    Allowing  fully  the 


1 6  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

importance  of  harmonizing  tendencies  and  the 
possibilities  of  accurate  oral  transmission,  we  may 
still  say  that  further  language  test  is  not  needed; 
and  any  theory  to  fit  the  facts  of  the  case  must 
recognize  that  we  have  here  a  common  written 
source  or  sources  written  in  Greek.  B.  W.  Bacon 
has  well  said  that  those  who  find  an  oral  source 
here  make  their  oral  source  the  equivalent  of  a 
document,  since  its  form  is  so  stereotyped  as  to 
make  the  resemblance  of  Matthew  to  Luke  closer 
in  the  portions  not  shared  by  Mark  than  in  the 
parts  taken  by  each  from  this  admittedly  written 
source.  The  only  alternative  is  to  suppose  that 
Matthew  used  Luke,  or  Luke,  Matthew.  W.  C. 
Allen's  attempt  in  his  commentary  on  Matthew 
to  revive  such  a  theory  has  hardly  been  a  success. 
He  has  thereby  raised  more  problems  than  he  has 
solved,  and  is  himself  compelled  to  fall  back  upon 
the  hypothesis  of  a  common  source.  The  com- 
parison made  with  Mark  ought,  furthermore,  to 
give  us  a  practical  certainty  that  this  source  or 
sources  included  more  than  the  seventy-five  verses 
where  the  verbal  agreement  is  so  complete.  Even 
in  the  sayings  of  Jesus  it  is  very  common  for  the 


Matthew^ s  and  Luke^s  Use  of  Mark         17 

first  and  third  evangelists  to  change  Mark's 
words  and  phrases,  but  oftentimes  while  doing 
this  to  retain  his  sentence  structure  and  sequence 
of  thought.  We  should  expect  to  find  the  same 
true  in  their  use  of  other  sources. 

In  order  to  free  our  discussion  of  any  presup- 
positions involved  in  the  name  employed,  we  will 
adopt  the  German  designation  Q  (Quelle)  for  this 
other  source  or  sources,  whose  character  and  limits 
we  are  trying  to  define.  Wellhausen  in  his  com- 
mentaries and  introduction  has  most  convincingly 
shown  that  the  material  usually  assigned  to  Q 
is  a  translation  of  an  Aramaic  original.  Recent 
research  in  Hellenistic  Greek  modifies  the  force 
of  some  of  his  arguments,  but  his  conclusions  still 
hold.  Semitic  scholars  also  argue  that  some  varia- 
tions of  Matthew  and  Luke  are  due  to  mistransla- 
tions of  the  Aramaic.  We  should  recognize  that 
the  Aramaic  original  must  for  some  time  have 
existed  side  by  side  with  the  more  widely  used 
Greek  copies,  and  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  suppose 
that  changes  here  and  there  in  Greek  manuscripts 
were  made  by  persons  familiar  with  the  Aramaic. 
But  there  is  always  a  large  subjective  element 


i8  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

in  such  conjectural  misreadings,  and  the  contention 
is  still  questionable.  Granting,  then,  the  possi- 
bility of  some  variations  due  to  the  Aramaic 
original,  we  must  still  hold  to  the  fact  of  a  common 
Greek  source.  This  is  recognized  by  Wellhausen, 
Einleitung,  p.  68. 


CHAPTER  II 

LITERARY    STUDY    OF    ALL   THE    COMMON 
MATERIAL  IN  SECTIONS 

The  primary  object  of  this  detailed  examination 
will  be  to  decide  just  how  much  of  the  common 
material  can  with  any  assurance  be  attributed  to  a 
written  source  or  sources.  At  the  same  time  an 
effort  will  be  made  to  eliminate  editorial  character- 
istics, but  with  the  understanding  that  such 
elimination  does  not  restore  all  the  special  qualities 
of  Q.  Luke's  order  will  be  used  tentatively, 
because  he  has  proved  to  be  more  reliable  in 
retaining  the  sequence  of  Mark. 

SECTION  I.      THE  PREACHING  OF  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST, 
MATT.   3:7-12;    LUKE  3:7-9,    15-18 

In  Luke  3:7^-9;  Matt.  3:76-10,  12  we  find 
the  first  instance  of  that  close  verbal  resemblance 
which  is  extended  enough  to  be  conclusive  evi- 
dence that  this  section  belongs  to  some  common 
source.  W.  C.  Allen  in  his  commentary  on 
Matthew  denies  this  and  urges  three  objections: 
"(a)  the  different  descriptions  of  the  audience, 

19 


20  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

(b)  the  absence  of  Luke  vss.  10-14  from  Matthew, 

(c)  the  variations  in  language."  Are  these  points 
well  taken?  Luke  3:10-14  readily  distinguishes 
itself  from  the  rest  of  this  passage  in  the  Third 
Gospel  by  differences  both  in  language  and  in 
thought.  While  vss.  7-9,  15-18  are  full  of  Semiti- 
cisms — iroL-qaaTe  Kapirovs,  ap^rjade,  the  play  on 
words,  Xt^ojj'  ....  TeKua  (abanim  ....  banim), 
ou  .  .  .  .  avTov — vss.  10-14  2,re  singularly  free 
from  them.  These  verses  reflect  the  characteristic 
Lukan  emphasis  on  almsgiving,  publicans,  and 
sinners.  Luke  vss.  15,  18,  which  are  wanting  in 
Matthew,  are  clearly  editorial  additions.  The  con- 
nection between  Matt.  3:10  and  3:11,  broken  by 
Luke  3:10-14,  is  restored  by  Luke  3:15.  The 
language  of  both  verses  is  strongly  Lukan. 

The  introduction,  which  describes  the  audience, 
Luke  3:7a;  Matt.  3:7^^,  does  vary  in  the  two 
Gospels;  but  it  is  noteworthy  that  it  is  just  such 
settings  in  Mark  which  the  first  and  third  evan- 
gelists most  freely  change.  Matthew  is  fond  of 
introducing  references  to  the  Pharisees  and  Sad- 
ducees,  but  Luke  is  equally  fond  of  referring  to  the 
multitudes.     Of  the  two,   the  wording  of  Luke 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  21 

seems  preferable,  but  what  stood  in  Q  must  remain 
doubtful,  Harnack^  has  very  plausibly  suggested 
that  the  phrase  7ra(ra  17  Treptxwpos  rov  lopdavov, 
Luke  ^:^',  Matt.  3:5,  is  a  fragment  of  the  Q 
introduction. 

Variations  of  language  are  few  and  easily  ex- 
plained. Luke  3:16;  Matt.  3:11  are  found  also 
in  Mark  i :  7-8  and  the  influence  of  Mark  accounts 
for  the  wider  difference  between  Matthew  and 
Luke  just  here.  Luke  especially  has  departed  from 
Q  and  followed  Mark  instead.  The  ev  irveviiari 
ayiLo  of  this  verse  may  have  been  taken  by  both 
evangelists  from  Mark.  Only  irvpl  is  required 
by  the  context,  but  it  is  quite  possible  that  Holy 
Spirit  and  fire  stood  together  in  the  source  Q.  The 
change  of  ap^rjade,  Luke  ^:Sy  to  dd^rjre,  Matt.  3:9, 
is  a  "deliberate  improvement  of  an  original  pre- 
served by  Luke."^  J.  H.  Moulton  also  maintains 
in  the  Expositor,  May,  1909,  p.  413,  that  avva^ai 
of  ^^,  Luke  3:17,  is  an  original  reading  of  which 
avpayayelv   of  i<*B   and  avva^eL  of   Matthew  are 

^  The  Sayings  of  Jesus,  p.  41.  Quotations  from  Harnack, 
unless  otherwise  stated,  are  taken  from  this  book. 

» J.  H.  Moulton,  A  Grammar  of  New  Testament  Greek,  Pro- 
legomena, p.  15. 


22  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

alternate  and  independent  corrections.  Nowhere 
in  Markan  material  is  a  common  source  so  evident 
behind  Matthew  and  Luke  as  it  is  here. 

SECTION  2.   THE  TEMPTATION  OF  JESUS, 
LUKE  4:1-13;  MATT.  4:1-11 

In  this  section  we  do  not  find  any  extended 
verbal  agreement,  and  yet  literary  evidence  of  a 
common  Greek  source  is  not  wanting.  The  only 
sayings  of  Jesus  here  are  LXX  quotations,  and 
these  are  alike,  except  that  Matthew  has  con- 
tinued the  quotation  from  Deut.  8:3  in  vs.  4,  and 
Luke  that  of  Ps.  91:11  in  vs.  11.  In  the  quota- 
tion from  Deut.  6:13  both  have  made  the  same 
change  in  the  LXX,  adapting  it  to  the  context. 
In  Matt.  4:5^,  6;  Luke  4:96,  10  the  verbal  like- 
ness is  striking :  koL  earrjaep  [avrdp]  eirl  t6  irrepvyiov 
Tov  Upov  Kal  [Xeyet]  aurc?  El  vlos  el  tov  Qeov,  jBoKe 
ceavTov  [eurevdep]  k6.to)  yeypairraL  yap  ort  .... 
This  use  of  TrrepvyLov  is  found  elsewhere  only  in 
Dan.  9:27. 

It  is  also  significant  that  the  variations  can  all 
be  readily  accounted  for.  In  the  introduction  of 
Luke,  vs.  I  has  marked  Lukan  characteristics,  and 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  23 

vs.  2a  is  influenced  by  Mark.  Matt.,  vs.  la,  may 
also  be  influenced  by  Mark.  Treipaadijvai  is  sus- 
picious because  of  Matthew's  tendency  to  empha- 
size the  fulfilment  of  divine  purpose.  As  usual, 
the  introduction  of  the  common  source  has  been 
freely  handled.  But  Matt.,  vs.  2,  agrees  with 
Luke,  vs.  26,  against  Mark  and  points  at  once  to 
its  presence.  In  vs.  11  Matthew  has  added  the 
reference  to  the  angels  from  Mark  1:13.  The 
accounts  of  the  temptations  themselves  differ 
principally  in  the  order  of  the  second  and  third 
temptations.  Otherwise,  sentence  for  sentence, 
clause  for  clause,  the  sequence  of  thought  is  the 
same.  It  is,  perhaps,  Luke  who  made  the  one 
change  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  the  two  tempta- 
tions located  in  the  wilderness  together  and  the 
one  in  Jerusalem  last.  The  third  evangelist  is 
especially  concerned  in  such  orderly  sequence  of 
time  and  place.  As  Harnack  (p.  44)  says,  no 
argument  can  be  based  on  the  viraye  aarava  of 
Matt.  4: 10,  for  it  may  well  be  an  insertion  on  the 
basis  of  Mark  8:33. 

What  other  differences  there  are  reflect  only  the 
characteristics  of  the  editorial  work  of  Matthew 


24  Matthew'' s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

and  Luke;  such  as  Matthew's  addition  of  irpoaeK- 
BCiv,  vs.  3,  and  his  use  of  tt^v  ayiav  irokiv  for  Jerusa- 
lem, vs.  5.  oLKovfxePTjs ,  Luke,  vs.  5,  is  a  favorite 
word  of  that  evangehst,  as  KoafjLov,  Matt.,  vs.  8,  is 
of  the  other.  J.  H.  Moulton  in  the  Expositor, 
May,  1909,  p.  415,  shows  good  reason  for  regard- 
ing Luke's  ovK  e4)ay€v  ovbep,  vs.  2,  as  more  origi- 
nal than  Matthew's  vqcrrevaas.  That  Matthew 
changed  the  one  stone  into  stones  is  made  probable 
by  his  preference  for  plurals.^  Luke  4:13,  which 
Harnack  rejects,  strongly  resembles  Luke  7:1  = 
Matt.  7:28;  8:5,  and  may  well  belong  to  the 
source.  crvPTeXeo)  is  not  characteristic  of  Luke, 
but  axpi'  Kdipov,  which  also  occurs  in  Acts  13:11, 
may  be  an  addition  of  the  evangelist.  The  omis- 
sion of  this  sentence  by  Matthew  is  due  to  the 
influence  of  Mark.  It  ought,  however,  to  be 
granted  that  sometimes  the  reading  of  one  Gospel 
is  as  probable  as  that  of  the  other,  and  certain 
features  of  Q  must  have  disappeared  from  both 
accounts.  The  important  point  is  the  demonstra- 
tion that  Matthew  and  Luke  are  using  a  common 
source  here  whose  tenor  can  be  closely  approxi- 
»  W.  C.  Allen,  Matthew,  p.  83. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  25 

mated.  If  we  compare  this  narrative  with  any 
Markan  narrative  we  find  that  there  is  exactly  the 
same  sort  and  degree  of  resemblance  in  the 
Matthew  and  Luke  accounts  here  which  we  find 
there.  The  theory  of  a  common  Greek  source 
furnishes  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  resem- 
blances and  differences  of  the  two  Gospels  in  this 
section,  if,  indeed,  it  is  not  demanded  by  them. 

SECTION   3.      DISCOURSE   ON   LOVE,    THE   PRINCIPLE 

OF   CONDUCT,    LUKE    6:20-49;     MATT.    5:1-12, 

38-48;    7:1-5,12,16-21,24-27 

That  Matthew's  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  an 
editorial  composition  is  all  but  universally  recog- 
nized. Our  investigation  of  Matthew's  use  of 
Mark  has  led  us  to  anticipate  such  compilation 
and  also  indicates  the  principles  which  ought  to 
guide  us  in  an  attempt  to  analyze  it.  The  miracles, 
which  Matthew  has  gathered  together  in  the 
eighth  and  ninth  chapters,  Luke  has  retained,  for 
the  most  part,  in  their  Markan  setting.  In  Hke 
manner,  much  of  the  Matthean  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  is  found  distributed  in  Luke.  Luke  there- 
fore gives  us  the  objective  starting-point  which  is 


26  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

needed  in  analyzing  Matthew  here.  Little  can 
be  said  for  the  view  that  Luke  has  divided  the 
longer  discourse  of  Matthew.  No  example  of  such 
division  and  readjustment  can  be  found  anywhere 
in  his  Markan  material.  But,  as  has  already 
been  said,  greater  freedom  in  language,  and  omis- 
sions and  additions,  especially  of  an  explanatory, 
editorial  character,  are  to  be  anticipated  in  Luke. 
With  this  justification  of  our  point  of  approach  let 
us  now  apply  the  test  of  Luke  6 :  20-49  ^^  ^^  com- 
posite discourse  of  Matthew. 

Passing  by  the  introductions,  which  are  more  or 
less  editorial,  we  notice  that  the  Beatitudes  of  Luke 
refer  to  conditions  of  life,  while  those  peculiar  to 
Matthew  refer  to  spiritual  virtues.  Surely,  mourn- 
ing does  not  belong  in  the  same  category  with  mercy, 
and  persecution,  even  for  righteousness'  sake,  is 
not  to  be  desired  in  the  same  sense  as  purity  of 
heart.  There  are  two  elements  in  these  Matthean 
Beatitudes  that  gain  in  strength  and  clarity  when 
they  are  separated.  Matthew  has  done  a  great 
service  in  emphasizing  the  religious  quality  in  such 
words  as  tttcoxoi  and  ireiPoopTes  y  but  this  does  not 
make  the  greater  originality  of  Luke's  form  less 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  27 

probable.  That  Matthew  has  here  compiled  is 
further  indicated  by  the  transition  from  the  third 
to  the  second  person  in  vss.  11,  12.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  three  woes  of  Luke  6:24-26  may  be 
editorial  amplifications  of  Luke.  Their  omission 
by  Matthew,  their  relation  to  Luke's  special 
material,  the  weak  on  clauses,'  and  the  way  they 
break  into  the  context,  separating  vs.  23  and  vs.  27, 
support  the  view  that  they  did  not  stand  in  any 
common  source. 

Not  only  do  both  the  Matthean  and  the  Lukan 
forms  of  this  discourse  begin  with  the  same  Beati- 
tudes, but  they  close  with  the  same  parable, 
Matt.  7 124-27=  Luke  6:47-49.  In  this  epilogue 
the  sequence  of  thought  is  exactly  the  same,  and 
the  verbal  likeness  is  far  closer  than  at  first  sight 
appears : 

Matt. :    Tra%  ovv  0(rTi?  axovei  fiov  tovs  Xoyovs  rovrovs. 
Luke:    ttSs  6  .   .   .   .  aKOvcov  fiov  to>v  Xoyiov. 

*  The  last  is  especially  clumsy.  Who  are  the  you  and  who  the 
their  fathers  ?  A  distinction  is  made  in  vs.  23  between  the  dis- 
ciples and  those  who  persecute  them,  but  these  woes  cannot  be 
addressed  to  the  disciples,  but  must  be  regarded  as  spoken  to  the 
multitudes,  and  the  distinction  between  you  and  their  fathers 
then  becomes  awkward.  The  false  disciples  of  Jas.  5 :  i  ff .  are 
in  the  mind  of  the  editor  who  added  these  verses.  But  this  only 
confirms  their  secondary  character. 


28  Matthew^s  Sayings  oj  Jesus 

Matt.  :     Kttt    TTOlCt  aUTOVS   OflOL(i)6l^(T€TaL  dvBpl   <l>pOVifJL(^. 
Luke:     KoI   TTOLIOV  aVTOV<:    ....    O/AOtOS    €(TTIV   dvOptOTTQ). 

Matt.  I    ocTTis  <oKo86fJLr)(T€V  avTov  TTjv  oIklov  €7rt  Trjv  iri- 

rpav 

Luke:  oIkoBoixovvtl  oIklov  ....   €7rt  Tr)v  Tvirpav. 

Matt.:    KOLi  rjXOav  ol  TTOTa/xol  Kal  iirvevcav  ot  ave/xoi  Kai 
Luke:    irkYjixfivprfS  Se  y€VOfi.€vr}<s  Trpoaiprj^ev  6  Trorap.6% 

Matt. :    Trpoaerretrav  t-q  oIklo,  iKeLvrj,  koI  .... 
Luke:  ttJ  oIklo.  iXeivy,  Kal  .... 

Matt. :   Kal  TTttS  6  Slkowov  fiov  TOV)s  \oyovs  Tovrovs  Kal  fxrj 

Luke :  o  Sc  dKOvcra^  Kal  firj  Troiiycras 

Matt.:    avTOvs,  6fiOLO}6T^(T€TaL  avSpl  fi(j)pi3  otTTts  (JkoSo- 

Luke:  o/moio?  cortv  dvOpwTrto        olKohofir]<ravTi 

Matt. :    avTOv  Tr]v  OLKLav  cttI  t^v  dix/xov,  etc. 
Luke:  olKcav  iirl  rrjv  yrjv  ....  etC. 

The  common  beginning  and  ending  which  we  have 
found  is  a  strong  indication  that  some  source, 
containing  not  mere  fragmentary  sayings  but  a 
real  discourse,  stood  back  of  both  the  accounts, 
Matthew's  and  Luke's.  This  is  confirmed  by  the 
relation  of  the  whole  discourse  to  the  following 
narrative  of  the  centurion's  servant.  The  con- 
nection is  not  easily  accounted  for  in  any  other 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  29 

way.  Luke  7:1  combines  Matt.  7:28  and  8:5; 
and  the  cleansing  of  the  leper,  Matt.  8:1-1,  is 
generally  recognized  as  an  insertion  of  Matthew 
from  Mark.  In  this  account  of  the  centurion's 
servant,  so  closely  connected  in  both  Gospels  with 
the  preceding  sermon,  literary  evidence  again 
demonstrates  the  presence  of  a  common  source.  It 
is  hard  to  doubt  that,  wherever  Matthew  and  Luke 
found  this  narrative  of  healing,  they  also  found 
just  before  it  a  discourse  of  Jesus  beginning  with 
the  Beatitudes  and  closing  with  the  parable  of  the 
Two  Builders. 

Another  important  consideration  is  that  through- 
out the  common  material  the  sequence  is  remark- 
ably alike: 

Matt.  5:3= Luke  6 :  20 


(4= 

.216) 

7:1,  2  = 

37,38 

6= 

21a 

3  = 

41 

11  = 

22 

4,5  = 

42 

12  = 

23 

(12  = 

31) 

39= 

29a 

18  = 

43 

40  = 

30 

19  = 

44 

(44  = 

27,  28) 

22  = 

46 

(45  = 

35^) 

24= 

47,  48a 

46  = 

32 

25  = 

486 

47  = 

ZZ 

26,27  = 

49 

48  = 

36 

30  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

Only  four  of  the  twenty-six  verses  of  Matthew 
stand  in  a  different  order  from  the  parallel  verses 
of  Luke.  The  first  of  these  changes  is  merely 
the  transposition  of  two  sentences,  readily  explained 
by  Matthew's  additions  to  the  Beatitudes.  The 
other  three  are  all  related  to  one  point  in  the  dis- 
course, and  that  point  is  just  where  Matthew 
returns  to  the  Lukan  material.  Either  the  former 
has  added  or  the  latter  has  omitted;  in  either 
case  the  break  in  the  common  order  is  explained. 
Such  a  similarity  through  twenty-six  verses  cannot 
be  accidental.  The  large  amount  of  independent 
material  scattered  through  Matt.,  chaps.  5,  6,  7, 
only  makes  it  the  more  striking.  We  note  also 
that  there  is  here  the  same  combination  of  close 
verbal  resemblance  with  literary  freedom  which 
is  usual  in  Markan  material.  Imbedded  in  the 
discourse  as  an  integral  part  are  6:41,  42  of  Luke 
and  7:3-5  of  Matthew,  where  the  identity  of 
language  demands  a  common  source,  written  in 
Greek.*  t6  /cap0os  and  17  boKos  are  found  nowhere 
else  in  the  New  Testament;  Sta/QXeTrco,  only  in 
Mark  8:25;  Karavoeh  occurs  nowhere  else  in 
» See  Hawkins,  Horae  Synopticae,  pp.  44,  50. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  31 

Matthew;  such  an  insertion  of  words  between 
article  and  noun  as  Tr)p  8e  ev  tw  <7c3  6<f)dd\iJL(}  8ok6v 
occurs  only  here  in  Matthew,  acfyes  eK^aXo)  is  a 
Semiticism,  peculiar  to  the  common  material  of 
Matthew  and  Luke.  This  close  verbal  likeness  is 
not,  indeed,  maintained  throughout,  nor  should 
the  student  of  Mark  and  its  parallels  be  surprised 
at  this,  but  rather  that  the  evangelists  hold  so 
closely  to  the  wording  of  their  source  as  they  do 
in  this  non-Markan  common  material.  The  evi- 
dence becomes  cumulative  that  Matthew  and  Luke 
preserve  this  other  source  far  more  carefully  than 
they  do  Mark. 

What,  now,  shall  we  say  about  the  large  portions 
of  the  Matthean  Sermon  on  the  Mount  which 
Luke  omits?  As  we  remarked  at  the  beginning, 
those  sections  which  are  paralleled  by  Luke  in  other 
contexts  can  hardly  be  original  here.  That  he 
broke  the  sermon  into  fragments  is  too  improbable 
to  be  supposed.  Luke  5:25,  26;  5:31,32;  6:9-14, 
6:19-34;  7:7-11  are  to  be  regarded  as  insertions 
into  this  context  by  Matthew.  In  7 : 2 1-23  he  com- 
bines the  conception  of  Luke  6:46  ff.,  which  refers 
to  Jesus  as  a  teacher,  with  Luke  13 :  23  ff.,  which  is 


32  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

eschatological  and  here  out  of  place.  Matt.  7:13, 
14  seems  to  be  related  to  the  same  Lukan  passage.' 
The  probability  is  also  strong  that  Matthew  has 
modified  Luke  6 :  43-45  to  give  these  verses  a  prac- 
tical application  to  the  church  problem  set  forth 
in  7:15.  In  12:33-35  he  gives  the  same  passage 
a  different  application.  This  tendency  to  apply 
Jesus'  sayings  to  immediate  needs  is  always  to  be 
reckoned  with.^  That  5:13-16  did  not  originally 
belong  to  the  discourse  has  been  sufficiently  well 
shown  by  Wendt  {Die  Lehre  JesUy  I),  B.  Weiss, 
and  B.  W.  Bacon  {The  Sermon  on  the  Mount). 
That  7:6  is  an  insertion  is  generally  accepted. 

The  comparison  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  with  the 
Old  Testament  law  in  5:17-38,  and  with  Phari- 
saic practice  in  6:1-8,  16-18,  has  by  nearly  all 
critics  been  regarded  as  an  omission  of  Luke,  on 
the  ground  that  these  sections  were  "inapplicable 
to  the  Gentiles  for  whom  he  wrote.  "^  Such 
extended  omissions  are  not  without  parallel  in 
Luke's  use  of  Mark;  and  his  motives  are  frequently 

*  This  passage  is  discussed  more  fully  on  pp.  96  ff. 

"  See  further,  pp.  61  f. 

5  Votaw,  in  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  V,  7. 


Study  oj  the  Common  Material  33 

difficult  to  determine.  This  should  be  granted, 
but  to  maintain  that  these  verses  were  inapplicable 
to  the  Gentiles  is  hardly  a  satisfactory  explanation 
of  their  omission  here.  Only  Matt.  5: 18,  19  could 
be  so  regarded,  but  their  originality  in  this  context 
is  widely  disputed,  and  5:18  is  in  fact  preserved 
by  Luke  in  a  different  context.  B.  W.  Bacon, 
while  arguing  for  the  omission,  makes  this  acknowl- 
edgment •} 

It  was,  indeed,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  historian  of 
Jesus'  life  and  teaching,  a  disastrous,  almost  incredible, 
mutilation  to  leave  out,  as  our  third  evangelist  has  done, 
all  the  negative  side  of  the  teaching  and  give  nothing  but  the 
commandment  of  ministering  love  toward  all.  We  can 
scarcely  understand  that  the  five  great  interpretative  antith- 
eses of  the  new  law  of  conduct  toward  men  versus  the  old, 
Matt.  5:21-48,  and  the  three  corresponding  antitheses  on 
duty  toward  God,  Matt.  6:1-18,  could  have  been  dropped 
in  one  form  even  of  the  oral  tradition. 

If  this  is  so,  ought  not  some  more  credible 
hypothesis  be  sought  ?  What  no  one  form  of  the 
tradition  would  drop,  a  separate  tradition  might 
preserve.  May  it  not  be  that  Matthew  has  added 
from  independent  sources,  rather  than  that  Luke 

*  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  p.  104.    The  italics  are  mine. 


34  MaUhew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

has  omitted  ?  All  the  elements  of  Matthew's  dis- 
course are  of  prime  historical  importance,  but  the 
whole  is  manifestly  a  composite.  These  antitheses 
are  among  the  great  sayings  of  Jesus,  but  do  they 
not  belong  by  themselves  ?  They  have  their  own 
introduction  in  5:17  (18,  19),  20,  quite  distinct 
from  the  Beatitudes,  and  they  are  complete  in 
themselves.  Wellhausen^  has  called  attention  to 
the  fact  that  just  where  Matthew  takes  up  the 
material  of  the  Lukan  discourse,  in  5:38,  the 
formula  of  5:21  ff.  becomes  improbable.  The  lex 
talionis,  an  eye  for  an  eye,  a  tooth  for  a  tooth,  is 
given  in  the  Old  Testament  as  a  rule  for  judges,  not 
as  a  principle  of  general  conduct;  and  so  to  use  it 
is  not  exactly  fair  to  Judaism.  The  viewpoint 
also  seems  to  shift  a  little.  In  this  case  it  is  not  a 
standard  of  inner  motives  set  over  against  one  of 
external  acts,  as  in  the  previous  antitheses.  The 
same  objections  apply  with  even  more  force  to 
5:43,  against  which  modern  Jews  have  long  pro- 
tested. No  such  principle  is  set  forth  in  the  Old 
Testament,  nor  anywhere  else  in  Jewish  literature. 
The  Jews  never  taught  such  hatred  except  toward 
'  Kom.  Matt.,  in  loc. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  35 

national  and  religious  foes.  There  is,  therefore, 
good  reason  to  think  that  5:38  and  5:43  are 
editorial  additions  by  which  the  separate  speeches 
are  woven  into  one  whole.  Matt.  5:17  (18,  19), 
20-24,  27,  28  (29,  30),  33-37;  6:1-8,  16-18  thus 
becomes  a  separate  discourse,  three  antitheses  of  the 
old  and  the  new  law  and  three  antitheses  of  prin- 
ciples of  conduct. 

Our  conclusion,  based  on  the  strong  linguistic 
evidence  of  a  common  source,  the  common  se- 
quence, the  close  organic  relation  to  the  material 
that  follows,  and  the  evidence  of  compilation  on 
Matthew's  part  is  that  both  evangelists  are  here 
using  a  common  source,  Q.  The  exact  wording  of 
Q  can,  of  course,  never  be  restored.  Judging  again 
from  the  analogy  of  Mark,  we  can  only  say  that 
these  versions  give  us  approximately  what  stood  in 
the  source.  Matthew,  whom  we  expect  to  hold 
closer  in  details  to  his  source,  has  so  woven  material 
together  that  more  changes  here  are  necessary. 
Then,  too,  there  is  a  poetical  parallelism,  especially 
marked  in  the  Lukan  form,  which,  if  we  may  not 
attribute  it  to  Jesus  himself,  is  certainly  more 
likely  to  come  from  a  Semitic  source  than  from  its 


36  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

Greek  editor.  It  is,  as  we  shall  see,  one  of  the 
characteristics  of  Q. 

Without,  therefore,  attempting  to  restore  the 
original  text  we  may  still  venture  to  suggest  prob- 
able changes  made  by  the  evangelists.  If  in  the 
Beatitudes  Matthew  has  converted  conditions  of 
life  into  virtues  and  added  others  (probably  from 
independent  tradition,  though  their  close  relation 
to  the  Old  Testament  makes  this  doubtful),  Luke 
has  at  least  accentuated  his  interpretation  of  the 
Beatitudes  as  a  promise  of  a  reversal  in  the  king- 
dom of  present  human  conditions  by  the  addition 
of  vvv  {his)  and  Iv  eKeivri  rrj  rjfiepa^  Whether  the 
Son  of  Man  or  the  personal  pronoun  is  original  in 
the  Beatitudes  cannot  be  determined.  The  term 
"Son  of  Man''  is  found  throughout  Q. 

In  Matt.  5: 38-48  =  Luke  6:27-36  the  change  in 
order  is  due  to  Matthew's  combination  of  this  sec- 
tion with  5:13-37.    Luke  6:29,  30  =  Matt.  5:39-42 

*  Wellhausen's  explanation  of  the  difference  between  roiis  irpb 
vfiuiv  and  oi  irar^pes  avrCou  as  due  to  a  reading  of  daqdamaihon 
for  daqdamaikon  is  one  of  the  most  tempting  of  such  suggestions 
that  have  been  made.  But  there  is  good  reason  for  thinking  that 
Toi>j  irpb  vnuv  is  simply  an  addition  of  Matthew.  See  Hamack, 
p.  50. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  37 

are  separated  from  the  rest  to  form  a  contrast 
with  the  Old  Testament  principle  of  Matt.  5:38; 
and  Luke  5: 356  =  Matt.  5:45  is  inserted  at  the 
point  of  omission  to  make  a  suitable  transition. 
The  transference  of  the  Golden  Rule,  Luke  6 : 3 1 ,  to 
Matt.  7 :  12  is  because  Matthew  regards  it  as  a  sum- 
mary of  the  law,  and  the  whole  sermon  is  to  him  a 
discourse  on  the  new  law  fulfilling  the  Old  Testa- 
ment law;  he  therefore  places  this  summary  just 
before  the  conclusion  of  the  whole.  ''For  this  is 
the  law  and  the  prophets  "  is  his  addition  and  shows 
his  standpoint. 

Luke  seems  to  have  generalized  Matt.  5 145,  con- 
verting the  concrete  illustration  ''for  he  maketh  his 
sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and  the  good  and  sendeth  rain 
on  the  just  and  the  unjust''  to  the  general  state- 
ment "for  he  is  kind  toward  the  unthankful  and 
evil."  Matt.  5:41  may  be  a  further  illustration 
which  the  first  evangelist  has  added  from  popular 
tradition  or  it  may  have  stood  in  Q  and  been 
omitted  by  Luke.^  Luke's  figure  of  a  robbery  in 
vs.    29   seems   simpler   and   more   original   than 

*  Did.  1:35.,  which  in  general  is  closer  to  Luke,  includes  this 
saying. 


38  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

Matthew^s  form  of  a  lawsuit  in  vs.  40.  Luke^s 
additions  in  vs.  276  are  supported  by  the  early 
Fathers,  Did.  1:3  ff.;  Just.,  Ap.  1:15;  Didask. 
5:15,  but,  like  the  expansion  in  vss.  33  fif.,  are 
more  likely  to  be  Lukan  interpretations,  oi 
iifjLapTcoXol  is  a  characteristic  Lukan  term;  if  either 
evangelist  has  preserved  the  word  of  Q,  it  is 
Matthew.  But  reXetos,  Matt.,  vs.  48,  reflects  later 
doctrinal  views,  and  ol/crtp/icoj^,  Luke,  vs.  36,  is 
probably  from  the  original  source.  This  word, 
not  found  elsewhere  in  Luke,  fits  the  context  much 
better  than  reXetos.  The  mercifulness  of  God  is 
also  a  divine  attribute  frequently  emphasized 
in  the  Old  Testament,  and  oiKTipyMv  is  the  LXX 
translation  of  rehunij  sl  word  applied  regularly  to 
God. 

In  Matt.  7 : 1-5  =Luke  5 137-42  it  is  more  likely 
that  the  text  of  Luke  has  been  expanded.  The 
two  commonplace  proverbs,  vss.  39, 40,  are  found  in 
Matthew  in  quite  different  contexts,  15:14,  10:25. 
It  is  doubtful  whether  there  is  any  literary  con- 
nection in  this  case.'  Vs.  38  also,  as  Wellhausen 
has  suggested,  seems  overfull.    Probable  as  it  is 

^  These  verses  are  discussed  more  fully  on  p.  107. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  39 

that  we  have  additions  in  these  verses,  it  is  doubt- 
ful whether  they  were  made  by  the  third  evangelist 
himself.  They  may  have  been  added  previously. 
In  Matt.  7:16-20;  Luke  6:43-45,  however,  it  is 
Matthew  who  has  changed  and  applied  the  saying 
to  the  false  and  true  prophets  of  7:15.^  Between 
the  two  forms  of  the  concluding  parables  one  cannot 
decide,  but  Luke's  text  is  more  easily  explained  on 
the  basis  of  Matthew's  than  vice  versa.  Both 
evangeUsts  have  probably  made  some  changes. 
Matthew  has  expanded  7:28,  29  by  adding  the 
idea  of  Mark  1:22,  which  he  omitted  in  its  Markan 
connection. 

Most  difficult  of  all  is  the  task  of  determining 
what  introduction  this  discourse  had  in  Q. 
Matthew  places  the  discourse  near  the  beginning 
of  the  ministry,  but  introduces  the  mountain  and 
the  multitudes  of  Mark  3:7-12.  Jesus  is  described 
as  being  on  the  mountain  with  his  disciples.  They 
are  addressed,  but  the  people  are  down  below 
within  hearing.  As  has  often  been  noticed,  the 
parallel  to  Moses'  giving  the  law  on  Mount  Sinai 
is  striking.     In  Luke  the  discourse  is  directed  to 

'  For  the  relation  of  Matt.  7: 21  to  Luke  6:46  see  pp.  96  S. 


40  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

the  disciples,  6 :  20,  but  the  presence  of  the  multi- 
tude is  affirmed  in  6:17-19;  6:27  (?);  7:1.  Jesus 
is  not  upon  the  mountain,  but  has  just  come  down. 
It  is  probable  that  in  Q  the  disciples  were  addressed, 
but  it  is  evident  that  a  much  larger  company  than 
the  Twelve  was  intended.  Both  Matthew  and 
Luke  sought  to  give  the  discourse  as  large  an 
audience  as  possible  and  hence  used  Mark  3:7-12, 
but  in  their  own  individual  ways.  If  some  refer- 
ence to  mountain  or  hill  country  also  stood  in  Q,  it 
would  still  further  explain  this  common  use  of 
Mark  3:7-12. 

SECTION    4.      COMMENDATION     OF    A     CENTURION 'S 
FAITH,   LUKE    7:1-10;    MATT.   8:5-10,    13 

It  has  already  been  pointed  out  that  Luke's 
introduction  here,  7:1,  combines  Matthew's  con- 
clusion to  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  with  his  intro- 
duction to  this  incident,  and  that  therefore  the 
account  of  the  centurion  stood  in  this  same  con- 
nection in  Q.  The  verbal  agreement  of  Matt. 
8 : 8-10  =  Luke  7 :  66-9  necessitates  the  assumption 
of  a  common  Greek  source  here.  This  verbal 
agreement  includes  several  striking  phrases.     The 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  41 

iKavbs  IVa  of  Matt.  8:8=Luke  7:6  is  mentioned  by 
Hawkins,  Horae  Synopticae,  p.  50.  elire  Xoyw, 
Matt.  8:8  =  Luke  7:7,  should  also  be  noted.  It 
occurs  only  here  in  the  New  Testament.  Although 
the  two  accounts  agree  so  closely  in  the  conversa- 
tion reported,  the  preceding  narrative  is  given 
in  very  different  forms.  Matthew's  form  is  more 
condensed  and  simpler,  but  not  necessarily  more 
original.  That  a  gentile  centurion  should  send 
Jewish  elders  to  Jesus  is  most  natural;  nor  is  it 
strange  that  he  should  remain  by  the  bedside 
instead  of  coming  out  himself.  Nor  again  is  it 
absurd  that  the  friends  should  give  his  message 
in  his  own  words;  it  would  only  be  so  if  Jesus 
answered  them  as  if  addressing  him,  but  this  he 
does  not.  There  is  a  respect  here  for  Jewish 
prejudices  which  seems  primitive.  Nothing  dis- 
tinctively Lukan  can  be  found  in  the  standpoint 
of  these  additions,  nor  is  there  any  indication  that 
they  were  added  to  magnify  the  miracle.  The 
theory  of  an  assimilation  of  this  narrative  to 
Mark  5:21-43  does  not  commend  itself.  More- 
over, Matthew's  tendency  to  condense  pure  nar- 
ration is  established  by  his  use  of  Mark.     It  is 


42  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

possible,  therefore,  that  Luke  is  closer  to  Q  despite 
the  nearly  unanimous  verdict  of  the  critics  in 
favor  of  Matthew.  On  a  priori  grounds  we  should 
hardly  expect  the  longer  narrative  to  belong  to 
that  source,  and  it  may  be  that  Luke  has 
supplemented  Q  with  information  from  other 
sources. 

Matt.  8:  II,  12  is  an  insertion  of  that  evangelist.' 
Most  of  the  linguistic  differences  seem  due  to 
Luke's  literary  changes.  Luke  7:1a  is  a  Lukan 
paraphrase  for  Matt.  7:28a.  'ETretSiJ,  eTrXrjpcoaev 
prjuaTa,  eis  rds  iiKoas  are  all  characteristic  of  Luke. 
Matthew  is  also  truer  to  Q  in  retaining  the  term 
Trats  throughout,  but  Luke  has  probably  given  this 
word  its  true  interpretation.  The  Hebrew  equiva- 
lent na'^ar  (Aram,  talya)  has  the  same  ambiguity 
which  Trats  has.  In  Luke  7:26  rifieWev  TeXevr^Pj 
65  rjv  avT$  evTLfws  are,  perhaps,  additions  of  Luke; 
so  also  oxXw  in  7:9.  Luke  7 :  ^-6a  contains  several 
Lukan  characteristics.  These  do  not  necessarily 
mean  that  the  verses  are  a  composition  of  Luke, 
but  they  show  that  he  has  not  preserved  his  source 
without,  at  least,  verbal  changes.     Matt.   8:13 

» See  pp.  96  ff. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  43 

might  seem  to  be  more  original  than  Luke  7 :  10  if 
we  did  not  find  that  he  changes  the  text  of  Mark 
7:19,  30  in  the  same  way.^ 

SECTION     5.      DISCOURSE    ON    JOHN    THE    BAPTIST, 
LUKE    7:18-35;    MATT.    11:2-19 

Matt.  11:36-11,  16-19  ^^^  Luke  7:196,  22-28, 
31-35  are  practically  identical  in  language.  Only 
the  slightest  changes  have  been  made  by  the 
editors.  More  convincing  evidence  of  a  common 
Greek  source  cannot  be  asked  for.  Our  only  task 
is  to  point  out  such  editorial  changes  as  seem  prob- 
able. The  introductions.  Matt.  11:2,  3=Luke 
7:18-20,  show  the  usual  variations.  But  there 
must  have  stood  in  the  source  some  reference  to 
John's  sending  his  disciples  to  Jesus.  The  ques- 
tion they  ask  is  John's  question,  not  theirs,  Matt. 
ii:4  =  Luke  7:22.  Luke  7:21  is  certainly  an  ad- 
dition of  Luke  to  prepare  for  the  answer  of  Jesus, 
7:22.  In  Matt.  11:4-10  =  Luke  7 : 2  2-2 7  the  differ- 
ences are  insignificant.     Matthew  is  probably  more 

^  This  argument  would  naturally  have  no  force  for  those  who 
regard  Matthew  as  more  original  in  15: 21-28.  Hamack  may  be 
right  in  affirming  that  neither  verse  stood  in  Q.  The  interest  to 
Q  is  not  in  the  miracle,  but  in  the  saying  of  Jesus.    See  p.  210. 


44  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

original  than  Luke  in  ii:86,  but  Luke  gives  the 
true  position  of  ihelv  in  7:25,  26.  The  Semitic 
original  has  not  the  double  meaning  of  the  Greek 
Tt.  It  was,  therefore,  the  Greek  text  of  the 
source  which  Matthew  has  interpreted  differently 
from  Luke.  In  Luke  7:28  Trpo^^Jriys  is  either  an 
insertion  of  Luke,  softening  the  bold  assertion,  or 
a  gloss/  Both  evangelists  have  made  additions 
after  Matt.  ii:ii=Luke  7:28.  Matthew  adds 
vss.  12-15  qualifying  the  previous  statement  that 
John  does  not  belong  to  the  kingdom.  The  inser- 
tion by  Matthew  of  vss.  12,  13  is  thus  explicable, 
but  that  Luke  should  have  omitted  this  clause 
here  to  insert  it  in  16 :  16  is  hard  to  believe.  Matt. 
11:14  might  have  been  omitted  by  Luke  for  the 
same  reason  that  he  leaves  out  Mark  9 : 9-13.  But 
if  vss.  12,  13  are  an  insertion  of  Matthew,  vs.  14 
probably  is  one  also.  Luke,  likewise,  has  added 
vss.  29,  30  to  form  a  better  transition  to  the  parable 
which  follows.  But  the  contrast  in  these  verses 
between  the  pubHcans  on  the  one  hand  and  the 

^  The  position  in  which  D  places  7 :  28a  is  attractive,  but  has 
not  sufficient  textual  support.  irpoipT^r-qs  is  omitted  from  B,  a, 
and  other  manuscripts. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  45 

Pharisees  and  the  scribes  on  the  other  is  not  the 
point  of  the  parable.  In  the  parable  itself  the 
Semitic  parallelism  is  better  preserved  in  Luke 
than  in  Matthew .  B ut  Luke  has  probably  changed 
eKoypaade  to  eKKavaare;  and  apTov,  olvov,  ttLvtosv  are 
either  glosses  or  additions  of  Luke.  It  is  Matthew, 
however,  and  not  Luke,  who  has  changed  rlKvoiv 
to  €pyo)v.  In  the  section  just  after  this  Matthew 
puts  the  woes  upon  the  cities  which  do  not  recog- 
nize the  ^'works''  of  Jesus,  ra  'ipya  is  likewise 
introduced  by  Matthew  at  the  beginning  of  this 
section,  11:2.  Lagarde's  theory  that  this  varia- 
tion is  due  to  a  misreading  of  the  Hebrew 
original,  Wellhausen  has  shown  to  be  impos- 
sible.' 

SECTION     6.      FOLLOWING    JESUS,     LUKE     9:57-62; 
MATT.   8:19-22 

In  this  section  the  verbal  likeness  throughout 
is  such  that  no  one  can  question  the  presence  of 
a  common  Greek  source.  Matthew  has  sought 
to  define  the  tls  of  Luke  9:57  more  closely  as  a 
scribe;  StSdcr/caXe  also  is  more  likely  to  have  been 

*  See  Matthew,  in  loc. 


46  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

added  than  omitted.  It  is  hard  to  decide  which 
Gospel  gives  the  saying  in  regard  to  the  second 
follower  in  the  primitive  form.  In  Luke  vss.  59,  60 
are  a  counterpart  to  vss.  57,  58,  and  the  develop- 
ment of  thought  is  clearer.  The  change,  if  made  by 
Matthew,  can  be  accounted  for  by  the  situation  in 
which  Matthew  puts  these  sayings.  They  are  a 
test  of  those  who  would  follow  Jesus  as  he  is  about 
to  cross  the  lake.  In  this  connection  Luke  9:606 
is  out  of  place  and  the  adaptation  of  Matthew  is 
understood.  This  emphasis  on  preaching  the 
kingdom  belongs  to  Q,  not  Luke;  in  the  section 
which  followed  in  Q  it  is  twice  referred  to.'  Even 
more  difficult  is  the  question  whether  or  not  Luke 
9:61,62  are  added  by  Luke  or  omitted  by  Matthew. 
As  has  been  said,  the  sayings  of  vss.  57,  58  and  of 
vss.  59,  60  are  counterparts,  complete  in  them- 
selves. The  point  of  what  is  said  to  the  third 
would-be  follower  is  nearly  the  same  as  that  of 
what  is  said  to  the  second.  But  this  is  hardly 
sufficient  ground  for  regarding  it  as  an  addition. 
Matthew's  context  favored  condensation,  evi- 
deros  is  found  elsewhere  only  in  Luke  14:35,  and 
'See  Luke  10:9,  n;  Matt.  10:7. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  47 

aTroT6.^€(T6aL  is  found  in  Luke  14:33,'  another 
passage  on  the  conditions  of  discipleship  probably 
belonging  to  Q.^  If  this  is  an  addition  it  is  a  very 
old  one. 

SECTION    7.      COMMISSION    TO    THE    DISCIPLES, 
LUKE    10:1-12;    MATT.   9:35 — IO:i6 

In  this  section,  as  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
problems  are  created  by  the  conflation  which 
Matthew  has  made,  this  time  with  the  parallel 
account  in  Mark.  Matt.  9:35  is  a  repetition  of 
4 :  23  =  Mark  i :  39.  Matt.  9 :  36  reflects  Mark  6 :  34. 
With  Matt.  9:37  the  first  evangelist  takes  up  the  Q 
account,  and  the  fact  that  he  puts  10:  i  =  Mark  6: 7 
after  9:37,  38  =  Luke  10:2,  where  it  is  entirely 
out  of  place,  is  conclusive  evidence  that  he  is  here 
combining  his  two  sources.  With  10:5,6  Matthew 
returns  again  to  Q.  This  can  be  regarded  as  certain, 
even  though  these  verses  are  omitted  by  Luke; 
the  wonder  is  that  even  Matthew  has  retained 
this  prohibition  against  going  among  the  heathen 
or  Samaritans.  Matt.  10:7a  is  from  Luke  10: gb. 
Matt.  10:8  is  an  editorial  addition  of  Matthew  on 

*  Elsewhere  only  in  Mark  6:46;  Acts  18:18,  21;  II  Cor.  2:13. 
"  See  pp.  174  f. 


48  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

the  basis  of  Jesus'  words  to  John  the  Baptist  in 
11:5.^  Matt.,  10:9,  10  combine  features  of  both 
sources  and  show  an  adaptation  to  later  church 
problems.  Matt.  10:11  is  from  Mark  6:10,  but 
*' search  out  who  in  it  is  worthy"  is  added  to  meet 
a  later  church  problem.  Matt.  10:12,  13  is  from 
Luke  10:5,6;  10:14  from  Mark  6:11;  10:15  from 
Luke  10:12;  io:i6a  from  Luke  10:3.  Matt.  10: 
16b  is  not  found  in  Luke  but  it  is  very  possible  that 
Luke  objected  to  this  comparison  of  disciples  to 
serpents  and  therefore  omitted  it. 

Turning  now  to  Luke's  account  of  the  commis- 
sion to  the  disciples,  we  would  regard  10:1  as  re- 
dactional,  adapting  this  section  to  the  situation  of 
9 : 5 1  ff .  The  number  ^ '  seventy ' '  probably  replaces 
the  usual  *' disciples"  of  Q.  Luke  may  have 
found  it  already  added  to  his  source  or  adopted 
it  from  oral  tradition.  We  have  already  referred 
to  Luke's  omission  of  the  prohibition  against  work- 
ing among  heathen  and  Samaritans.  Its  form 
and  position  in  Matthew  would  indicate  that  it 
followed  Luke  10:2.    Of  the  original  position  of 

^  J.  Weiss  in  Die  Schriften  des  N.T.,  in  loc,  has  well  presented 
the  secondary  character  of  Matthew  throughout  this  section. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  49 

Luke  10:3  we  cannot  be  sure,  for  it  may  have  been 
inserted  where  it  is  in  place  of  the  passage  omitted 
by  Luke.  The  verse  is  abrupt  where  it  stands,  but 
after  Matt.  10 : 6  it  would  be  impossible.  No  place 
for  this  verse  would  be  more  appropriate  than  at  the 
end  of  the  next  section,  Luke  10:16.  Matthew 
would  then  have  retained  it  in  its  original  relative 
position  as  an  introduction  to  the  warnings  which 
he  adds  here,  but  have  omitted  the  intervening 
woes  to  be  used  elsewhere,  ii:2off.  However, 
we  can  only  conjecture  where  this  originally  stood. 
Luke  io:8&  reads  like  a  later  addition,  having  in 
mind  the  same  church  problem  which  Paul  en- 
counters, I  Cor.  10:27.  With  these  exceptions 
Luke  no  doubt  gives  us  the  thought,  if  not  the 
exact  language,  of  Q. 

Our  analysis  makes  it  clear  that  we  are  not  deal- 
ing merely  with  two  or  three  stray  verses  which 
Matthew  and  Luke  have  in  common,  but  with  a 
connected  discourse  which  both  use,  Matthew 
weaving  all  characteristic  passages  into  Mark, 
Luke  placing  the  whole  side  by  side  with  Mark 
(9:1  ff.  =  Mark  io:iff.  =  Q).  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances we  should  not  be  surprised  if  verbal 


50  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

resemblances  were  wanting,  but  they  are  not 
entirely.  Matt.  9:37,  38  =  Luke  10:2,  where 
the  verb  eK/3dXXa)  for  sending  reapers  into  the 
harvest  points  to  an  awkward  but  accurate  Greek 
translation  of  an  Aramaic  appeq;^  and  Matt.  10: 
15=  Luke  10:12.  vnepa  Kplaecos  is  a  characteristic 
of  Matthew.  Matt.  io:i6a  is  also  identical  with 
Luke  10:3,  with  the  one  change  of  apvos  to  irpb^ara 
(or  vice  versa?).  The  common  use  here  of  ev 
with  the  dative  /icW  after  a  verb  of  motion  is  prob- 
ably a  Semiticism.  Therefore,  despite  the  changes 
which  have  been  made  in  the  editorial  use  of  this 
material,  we  can  with  all  confidence  assign  the 
section  to  the  common  Greek  source,  Q. 

SECTION  8.      WOES  ON  THE  CITIES  WHICH  FAIL  TO 
RESPOND,   LUKE    10:13-16;    MATT.    11:20-24 

Even  in  Matthew,  who  has  inserted  other 
material  between,  it  is  evident  that  this  section  is 
a  continuation  of  the  last,  for  he  has  repeated 
the  introductory  sentence  of  Luke,  Luke  10:12  = 
Matt.  11:24.^  The  verbal  resemblance  here  is  a 
conclusive  reason  for  thinking  that  this  stood  in  Q. 

*  Wellhausen,  in  loc.  *  For  further  evidence  see  p.  125. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  51 

Matt.  ii:2i-23a  =  Luke  10:13-15.  If  Luke  gives 
this  section  in  its  original  context,  then  11:20  and 
11:236  were  added  by  Matthew  in  suiting  it  to  a 
different  setting.  Luke  10:16  closes  the  discourse 
to  the  disciples;  and  is  original,  for  the  same  idea 
is  used  by  Matthew  in  his  concluding  verses,  10: 
40  ff .  But  Matthew  has  preferred  the  form  of  this 
saying  which  he  found  in  Mark  9:37  and  which 
better  suited  his  purpose. 

SECTION  9.      RETURN  OF  THE  DISCIPLES, 
LUKE    10:17-20 

This  section  is  not  found  in  Matthew  and  must 
be  considered  with  the  independent  material  of 
Luke.    See  p.  166. 

SECTION     10.      JESUS'     SELF-REVELATION     TO     HIS 
DISCIPLES,   LUKE    IO:2I,    22;    MATT.    11:25-27 

In  this  section  it  is  only  necessary  to  refer  to  the 
close  verbal  identity  which  proves  that  it  belongs 
to  Q.  Whether  the  introductory  clause  of  Luke 
10:21a  goes  back  to  his  source  is  questionable. 
The  emphasis  on  the  Holy  Spirit  sounds  Lukan, 
and  Luke  is  prone  to  add  such  clauses.    The  simple. 


52  MaUhew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

colorless  sentence  of  Matt.  11:25^  may  be  all 
that  stood  in  Q.  Harnack,  pp.  272  ff.,  following 
the  suggestion  of  Wellhausen,  argues  at  length 
to  show  that  Kal  tIs  eariv  6  vios  el  fxri  6  TraTrjp  was 
not  in  Q.  It  is  possible  that  it  is  an  insertion; 
but  the  evidence  is  not  convincing. 

SECTION    II.      THE   PROPHETS'    DESIRE    FOR    WHAT 

THE  DISCIPLES  HAVE   SEEN,   LUKE    10:23-24; 

MATT.    13:16,    17 

The  principal  question  in  this  short  section  con- 
cerns its  original  position.'  The  verbal  likeness 
here  is  close.  Luke  has  added  a  characteristic 
introductory  clause,  but  Matthew  has  changed 
^aaiKels  to  Skatot. 

SECTION   12.      PRAYER,  PROMISE  TO  THE  DISCIPLES 
OF  DIVINE  HELP,  LUKE    11:1-13;  MATT.  6:9-15; 

7:7-11 

In  Luke  11:1-4;  Matt.  6:9-13  one  is  more 
impressed  with  the  differences  between  the  Gospels 
than  with  their  likenesses.  This  could  be  explained 
on  the  ground  that  either  one  or  both  evangelists 
might  naturally  give  this  prayer  in  the  form  which 

*  See  p.  126. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  53 

was  known  and  used  in  his  community.  But  the 
stylistic  changes  of  Luke  show  that  he  is  using 
some  source  rather  than  a  formal  community 
prayer/  The  use  by  both  evangelists  of  the  un- 
intelligible word  eiTiovaLOP  can  also  be  best  explained 
as  coming  from  a  common  source.  Moreover, 
Matthew  contains  the  same  petitions  as  Luke 
in  the  same  order;  the  principal  difference  is  that 
Matthew's  account  is  much  fuller.  English  and 
American  scholars  have  as  a  rule  maintained 
the  greater  originality  of  the  Matthean  form. 
Votaw's  article  on  ^'The  Sermon  on  the  Mount" 
in  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  Vol.  V,  is 
representative.  But,  surely,  the  historical  prob- 
abiHty  points  the  other  way.  ^'Thy  will  be  done 
on  earth  as  it  is  in  heaven"  is  only  a  further  defini- 
tion of  ^'Thy  kingdom  come."  So  also  *' Deliver 
us  from  evil"  only  states  in  a  positive  form  what 
^'Lead  us  not  into  temptation"  expresses  nega- 
tively. These  clauses  amplify,  but  they  add  no 
new  element  of  thought;  nor  do  they  contain 
anything  distinctively  Jewish  which  Gentiles  would 
have  any  reason  to  omit.  The  very  reverse  is 
'  See  Harnack,  p.  64. 


54  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

nearer  the  truth.  Both  petitions  are  to  be  ex- 
plained as  interpretative  additions  due  to  Hturgical 
use,  and  not  as  Lukan  omissions.  "Our  Father 
who  art  in  heaven,"  a  characteristic  term  of  later 
rabbinic  Kterature,  is  found  only  in  one  passage  of 
the  New  Testament  outside  of  Matthew,  and  that 
passage  is  regarded  by  some  as  due  to  Mark's 
influence,  Mark  11:25,  26.'  The  fact  that  the 
term  is  peculiar  to  Matthew  throws  doubt  on  its 
use  by  Jesus.  The  case  is  especially  strong  against 
its  use  here.  Granting  that  Jesus  might  have  em- 
ployed either  expression,  the  fact  remains  that  in 
his  own  prayers  he  said  only  *^Abba,  Father." 
On  this  point  the  testimony  of  Matthew  agrees 
with  that  of  Mark,  Luke,  and  John.  Rom.  8:14, 
15;  Gal.  4:6;  I  Pet.  1:17  indicate  that  he  taught 
his  disciples  when  they  prayed  to  address  God  in 
the  same  simple  way. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Lukan  form  of  this  prayer 
also  shows  indications  of  editorial  change.  t6 
KaB^  rjnepap  is  found  only  in  Luke  19:47;  Acts  17:4 

*  Luke's  use  of  irar^^p  6  i^  oipavov  in  ii :  13  would  seem  to  show 
that  he  was  unfamiliar  with  the  Matthean  title  rather  than  that 
he  objected  to  it.  Gentile  influence  cannot  account  for  the  dis- 
appearance of  this  title  outside  of  Matthew. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  55 

and  may  be  an  interpretation  of  that  evangelist. 
Luke  11:4  seems  to  have  been  changed  by  Luke  for 
literary  reasons.  Matt.  6 : 1 2  is  recognized  by  all  as 
more  primitive.  The  striking  term  ocfyeCKrinaTa  of 
vs.  12  is  changed  to  TrapairTcofxaTa  in  vss.  14  and  15. 
In  these  verses  Matthew  is  probably  appending  ma- 
terial from  another  source.  In  Luke's  introduction 
the  first  clause  at  least,  ^'It  came  to  pass  while  he 
was  in  a  certain  place  praying,  when  he  stopped," 
has  all  the  earmarks  of  Lukan  editorship,  and  in- 
troductions we  know  were  always  the  most  subject 
to  change.  The  request  from  the  disciples,  how- 
ever, may  well  have  been  in  the  source,  for  it  is 
there  that  we  find  such  a  strong  interest  in  John 
the  Baptist.^  Harnack  has  connected  the  reference 
to  the  Baptist  here  with  the  Marcion  reading  of 
Luke  11:2',  which  he,  as  well  as  Wellhausen, 
regards  as  the  original  text  of  Luke.  Such  a  con- 
nection would  indicate  that  the  whole  introduction 
is  editorial,  but  the  textual  evidence  for  this  read- 
ing of  Luke  1 1 : 2  is  altogether  insufficient.  In  the 
only  three  witnesses  which  we  have,  the  position 
wavers.  Marcion  reads,  "Let  thy  Holy  Spirit 
^  Note  Sees,  i  and  5. 


56  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

come  upon  us  and  purify  us,"  instead  of  the  first 
petition.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  and  Cod.  700  evv.  read 
it  in  place  of  the  second.^  Surely  the  simplest  ex- 
planation of  this  petition  is  that,  like  the  Matthean 
prediction,  ^'Thy  will  be  done  on  earth  as  it  is  in 
heaven,"  it  is  another  interpretation  of  the  older, 
more  Jewish,  ''Thy  kingdom  come."  It  is  true 
that  this  interpretation  is  consistent  with  many 
other  changes  made  by  Luke.  But  this  does  not 
justify  one  in  attributing  every  reference  to  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  that  evangelist  without  more  trust- 
worthy witnesses.  There  is  of  course  no  question 
about  this  reading  having  stood  in  Q.  Q  must  have 
had  ''Thy  kingdom  come." 

Parables  such  as  Luke  11:5-8,  which  are  not 
testified  to  by  Matthew,  need  to  be  considered 
in  connection  with  the  special  material  of  Luke. 
See  p.  167. 

In  Matt.  7 17-11=  Luke  11:9-13  we  have  again 
that  close  verbal  relationship  which  we  have  learned 
to  expect  in  a  large  portion  of  this  material.  It 
includes  the  word  hnhdoaei,  found  nowhere  else  in 
Matthew,  and  dofxara,  which  is  a  common  word  in 

•  See  Ropes,  Agrapha,  p.  57.     Gregory  is  followed  by  Maximus. 


'    Study  of  the  Common  Material  57 

the  LXX  but  nowhere  else  in  the  Gospels  or  Acts. 
Our  greatest  difficulty  is  in  the  relation  of  Luke 
11:  II,  12  to  Matt.  7:9,  10.  The  textual  evi- 
dence gives  a  strong  probability  to  the  claim  that 
in  Luke  1 1 : 1 1  aprov  .  .  .  .  77  /cat  is  a  later  harmon- 
istic  insertion;  and  that,  therefore,  Luke  contained 
originally  only  the  reference  to  the  fish  and  the  ^gg^ 
while  Matthew  had  the  bread  and  the  fish.  Either 
might  have  stood  in  Q,  but  the  fact  that  stones  have 
already  been  used  in  this  same  figurative  way  twice 
in  Q^  favors  the  Matthean  form.  Luke  may  have 
thought  that  to  give  a  scorpion  instead  of  an  egg 
was  much  more  forceful  than  stones  for  bread. 
In  Luke  11 :  13  irvevjia  ayiov  has  been  substituted  for 
ayadd.  Harnack  has  argued  that  this  supports  the 
Marcion  reading  of  11:2,  but,  as  Wellhausen 
suggests,  intead  of  being  a  proof  it  may  have  been 
the  occasion  for  the  change  in  11:2. 

SECTION     13.      CALUMNY    OF    THE    PHARISEES, 
LUKE    11:14-23;    MATT    12:22-32 

In  this  section  we  have  an  excellent  example 
of  Matthew's  method  of  compilation.     No  very 

*  Matt.  3:9;   4:3;   this  latter  is  a  close  parallel. 


58  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

critical  examination  is  necessary  to  see  that 
Matthew  here  combines  Mark  3:22ff.  with 
Luke  ii:i4ff.  Passing  over  the  introduction  for 
the  present,  Matt.  12:256,  26a,  29,  31  (32)  are 
certainly  from  Mark.  Verses  31,  32  are  found  in 
an  entirely  different  connection  in  Luke.  There 
can  be  no  question  that  Luke  12:10  gives  the 
original  setting  of  this  saying  in  Q.  That  Matthew 
should  have  placed  it  here  is  explained  by  its 
occurrence  here  in  Mark;  but  why  Luke  should 
omit  it  here  and  put  it  in  a  different  context,  if  it 
stood  here  in  Q,  is  inexplicable.  Matthew  has 
been  influenced  by  the  form  of  this  saying  in  Q, 
as  a  comparison  readily  shows.  Matt.  12:21,  32 
combines  Q  and  Mark. 

Matt.  12:246,  25a,  256-28,  30  are  taken  from 
Luke's  source.  In  Matt.  12:266-28,  30,  the  two 
accounts  are  almost  word  for  word  the  same. 
Matthew  has  this  time  even  accepted  the  term 
*  *  kingdom  of  God . ' '  That  both  employed  the  prep- 
osition Iv  throughout  for  the  instrument  in  accord- 
ance with  Semitic  usage  is  noteworthy.'     aKopm^et, 

*  See  J.  H.  Moulton,  Grammar  of  New  Testament  Greeks  Pro- 
legomena, p.  104. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  59 

is  found  nowhere  else  in  the  Synoptics  or  Acts. 
The  only  difference  between  the  two  Gospels  is  in 
the  substitution  of  wpevfiaTi  by  Matthew  for  SaKTvXco. 
This  substitution  was  probably  caused  by  the  intro- 
duction from  Mark  of  the  sin  against  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

In  both  the  introduction  and  the  conclusion  of 
this  section  in  Matthew  a  phenomenon  occurs 
which  calls  for  further  explanation.  Matthew 
contains  two  passages  referring  to  a  dumb  man 
and  the  charge,  ''By  the  prince  of  demons  he 
casteth  forth  demons/'  9:32-34;  12:22-24.  The 
passage  in  chap.  9  is  closer  to  the  Lukan  parallel 
of  12:  22-24  than  is  the  reference  in  this  immedi- 
ate connection.  In  like  manner  Matthew's  con- 
clusion, 12:33-35,  is  parallel  to  Matt.  7:16-20 
of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount;  and  here,  the 
second  time,  it  is  the  passage  that  has  a  dif- 
ferent context  which  is  nearest  to  the  Lukan 
form  of  the  same  saying.  Attention  ought  to  be 
called  to  the  fact  that  this  is  no  uncommon  occur- 
rence in  Matthew.  For  instance,  Mark  3:7-12  is 
used  with  great  freedom  in  Matt.  12:15-21,  but 
in  Matt.  4:23-25  it  is  closely  followed.     Clearly 


6o  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

in  this  case  only  the  one  source  is  used.  Just  so 
in  the  introduction  to  the  sending  out  of  the 
Twelve,  Matthew  has  repeated  what  he  had  in 
4 123=  Mark  1:39;  and  anticipated  Mark  6:34, 
which  is  given  with  greater  freedom  again  in  its 
Markan  context,  14:14.  Nor  can  we  doubt  that 
he  has  done  the  same  thing  in  10:40,  anticipating 
Mark  9:37,  which  he  there,  i8:5  =  Mark  9:37, 
repeats.  Matt.  5:29,  30  =  18:8,  9  =  Mark  9:43  ff. 
is  a  similar  case.  There  is  slight  ground  for  assign- 
ing 5 :  29,  30  to  Q;  if  Luke  found  this  in  both  Mark 
and  Q  he  would  not  have  omitted  it.  Again, 
Mark  13:96-13  is  anticipated  in  Matt.  10:17-22 
(23  ?)  and  repeated  freely  in  24:9-14,  though  here 
there  is  better  ground  for  arguing  that  Matthew 
had  access  to  some  source  of  Mark.  What,  now, 
is  the  most  natural  explanation  of  such  passages  ? 
They  point  first  of  all  to  Matthew's  great  familiar- 
ity with  his  sources.'  He  knows  them  thoroughly 
and  uses  them  as  a  master.  Again,  they  emphasize 
that  Matthew's  great  concern  is  to  make  each  of 

^  J.  V.  Bartlett  in  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  art. 
"Matthew,"  says:  "Our  Matthew  was  so  familiar  with  the 
latter  [Mark]  as  to  combine  his  phrases  in  memory  without  a  full 
sense  of  their  actual  position  in  Mark's  narrative." 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  6i 

his  main  sections  as  complete  as  possible;  he  is 
not  at  all  afraid  of  duplication.  Duplicates,  there- 
fore, in  Matthew  do  not  necessarily  mean  two 
sources. 

In  Matthew's  section  on  miracles  he  needed  the 
healing  of  a  dumb  man  in  anticipation  of  1 1 :  i  ff . 
He  remembers  that  which  Q  gives  in  connection 
with  the  Beelzebul  incident,^  and  when  he  comes 
to  relate  the  Beelzebul  incident  itself  the  same 
healing  is  repeated  but  with  some  features  of 
the  incident,  with  which  he  joined  it  in  chap.  9, 
added.  These  are  added  for  the  purpose  of  con- 
trasting the  correct  estimate  of  Jesus  by  the 
people  to  this  judgment  of  the  Pharisees.  Mat- 
thew is  always  interested  in  showing  that  Jesus' 
condemnations  are  restricted  to  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees. 

Is  not  the  same  true  of  Matthew's  conclusion, 
12:33-37?  Surely  we  cannot  say  that  Matthew 
has  two  sources,  for  it  is  12:33-37  ^^^  ^^^t  7: 16  ff. 
which  shows  the  closest  literary  relationship  to 
Luke,  and  a  comparison  of  the  two  Matthean 

^  Not  the  healing  of  Mark  7:31-37,  to  which  9:32-34  has 
not  the  slightest  resemblance.  So  also  9:27-31  is  more  closely 
related  to  Mark  10:46-52  than  to  Mark  8:22  ff. 


62  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

passages  reveals  an  adaptation  to  different  con- 
texts rather  than  the  use  of  two  sources.  Both 
Matthew  and  Luke  include  this  parable  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  while  only  Matthew  gives 
it  here.  The  natural  conclusion  must  be  that  in 
common  source  it  belonged  to  that  sermon. 
Julicher^  argues  that  only  Luke  6 144  =  Matt.  7:17 
stood  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  that  both 
evangelists  independently  add  to  the  source  por- 
tions of  another  anti-pharisaic  speech,  which 
Matthew  gives  a  second  time  in  chap.  12.  A 
mere  statement  of  this  theory  shows  its  improb- 
abihty.  Jiilicher's  reason  for  this  view  is  that 
he  does  not  find  the  close  logical  connection  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  between  6:45  and  6:465., 
which  he  regards  as  necessary.  But  have  we  not 
as  close  a  development  of  thought  as  can  be 
asked  for?  In  Matt.  7: 1-5=  Luke  6:37-42^  a 
warning  is  given,  first,  in  regard  to  judging 
others;  second,  showing  the  need  of  examining 
one's   own   conduct.     Then   follows   this  parable 

^  Die  Gleichnisreden  Jesu,  p.  127. 

"Here    the   shorter    form  of   Matthew  is   preferable;     see 
p.  38. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  63 

of  the  Tree  and  Its  Fruit,  emphasizing  how  all 
conduct,  which  naturally  includes  speech,  is  an 
expression  of  the  inner  life  of  the  man.  In  6:45 
attention  is  especially  called  to  speech  as  revealing 
the  heart  or  inner  life.  This  is  succeeded  by  a 
warning  to  those  who  merely  make  professions 
without  taking  hold  of  Jesus'  teachings  with  all 
their  hearts,  6:46  ff.  Moreover,  even  if  we  did 
not  find  a  satisfactory  succession  of  ideas  here,  this 
would  not  prove  that  the  author  of  Q  did  not. 
Jiilicher  acknowledges  that  Matt.,  chap.  12,  offers 
only  a  doubtful  connection,  and  he  has  not  shown 
that  the  form  of  the  parable  in  chap.  12  is  at  all 
superior  to  that  of  Luke.  Luke  6:43  is  certainly 
more  original  than  Matt.  12:33.  Jiilicher's  objec- 
tion to  Luke  6 :  446  is  hypercritical.  In  6 :  45,  how- 
ever, the  avTov  at  the  end  is  an  awkward  addition 
which  Matthew  is  correct  in  omitting.  Matt. 
12:34a,  36,  37  are  editorial  additions  of  that  evan- 
gelist. Our  conclusion,  therefore,  is  that  here,  as 
in  the  previous  instances  we  have  quoted,  Mat- 
thew has  used  the  same  material  twice. 

Luke  seems  to  have  held  very  closely  to  his 
source  in  this  section.    Even  vs.  16  can  hardly  have 


64  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

been  added  here  by  Luke.  As  Wendt  argues,  no 
later  editor  would  have  inserted  it  so  long  before 
the  incident  which  it  introduces.  The  Beelzebul 
charge  and  the  demand  for  signs  were  already 
associated  in  Q,  and  to  Q  vs.  i6  must  be  assigned. 
Matthew  this  time  does  not  help  us  much  in 
determining  stylistic  changes  of  Luke.  It  is 
possible  that  Matt.  9:33^  preserves  a  clause 
omitted  by  Luke. 

SECTION     14.      THE    SEVEN    OTHER    SPIRITS, 
LUKE    11:24-26;    MATT    12:43-45 

The  close  verbal  identity  here  from  beginning  to 
end  leaves  no  question  about  this  section  except 
its  position  in  Q,  which  will  be  discussed  later. 
Whether  axoKa^ovTa  was  added  by  Matthew  or 
omitted  by  Luke  cannot  be  decided.  If,  as  good 
reason  will  be  shown  for  beheving,  the  position 
given  to  this  section  by  Luke  is  original,  then 
Matt.,  vs.  456,  is  an  editorial  addition.'  Luke  ii : 
27,  28  will  be  considered  with  all  such  material 
peculiar  to  Luke.     See  pp.  167  f. 

^  See  further  Julicher,  Die  Gleichnisreden  Jesu,  p.  237. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  65 

SECTION     15.      THE     DEMAND     FOR     A     SIGN     FROM 
HEAVEN,    LUKE    11:29-36;    MATT.    12:38-42 

In  this  section  also  we  find  the  usual  close 
verbal  resemblance  throughout,  but  here  there 
are  a  few  differences  which  attract  our  attention. 
Neither  the  introduction  of  Matthew  nor  that  of 
Luke  is  to  be  regarded  as  original.  Matthew,  as 
usual,  makes  this  a  demand  of  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees.  Luke  introduces  the  crowds  in  his 
characteristic  manner.  Probably  in  Q  this  section 
followed  immediately  upon  the  preceding  with  no 
further  introduction  beyond  v/hat  was  given  in 
Luke  11:16.  Luke  has  omitted  the  juoixaXts  of 
Matt.,  vs.  39,  as  we  should  expect  him  to  do.  tov 
Trpocf)r)Tov  is  more  likely  added  by  Matthew.  It  is 
generally  agreed  that  vs.  40  is  a  later  insertion  of 
Matthew.  Wellhausen,  who  stands  almost  alone 
among  liberal  critics  in  supporting  it,  seems  in  this 
case  at  least  to  be  influenced  by  his  prejudice 
against  the  source,  Q.  While  the  preaching  of 
Jonah  is  not  a  sign  in  the  sense  meant  by  Jesus' 
interrogators,  it  was  a  sign  which  the  Ninevites 
heeded  and  one  which  exactly  suited  the  occasion 
here.     Mark  and  Q  are  in  full  harmony.     Exactly 


66  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

the  same  truth  is  taught  in  Luke  12:54-56/  On 
the  other  hand,  Luke,  who  is  concerned  with  a 
proper  historical  sequence,  has  placed  Matt.,  vs.  42, 
before  vs.  41 .  There  is  not  sufficient  textual  evi- 
dence for  omitting  vs.  32  from  Luke's  text. 

The  appendix  which  Luke  adds  here,  11:33-36, 
is  one  of  the  most  puzzling  sections  in  all  the 
Gospels;  the  worst  difficulty  is  that  we  cannot 
know  what  the  true  text  of  Luke  is.  As  it  stands 
in  Textus  Receptus,  vs.  36  is  unintelligible.  A 
comparison  with  other  MSS  tends  to  show  that 
our  perplexity  is  caused  by  a  process  of  harmoni- 
zation of  this  with  the  other  similar  passages, 
Mark  4:21,  Matt.  5:15,  and  especially  Matt.  6:22, 
23.  The  most  thorough  investigation  of  these 
passages  has  been  made  by  Jiilicher  {Die  Gleichnis- 
reden  Jesu,  II,  98  ff.).  He  concludes  that  Luke 
originally  read  vss.  2>^,  34a,  36  (in  the  form  of  S^' 
succeeded  probably  by  vs.  35.  He  thinks  that 
vs.  346  was  inserted  here  from  Matt.  6:22,  23  and 

*  See  pp.  90  fif. 

'Mrs.  Lewis  translates  S^:  "Therefore  also  thy  body,  when 
there  is  in  it  no  lamp  that  shines,  is  dark;  thus  while  thy  lamp 
is  shining  it  gives  light  to  thee."  This  reading  is  also  £ound  in  the 
old  Latin  MSS  /,  q. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  67 

caused  the  present  confusion  of  the  text.  But  the 
same  line  of  reasoning  which  he  follows  favors 
the  probability  that  vs.  t^t,  likewise  has  slipped 
from  the  margin  into  the  text.  Just  as  the  inser- 
tion of  vs.  346  preceded  all  our  MSS  authorities,  so 
may  that  of  vs.  t^t,.  As  a  marginal  note  it  is 
intelligible,  as  an  integral  part  of  the  text  it  is 
most  difficult.  Omitting  it,  the  connection  between 
vss.  32  and  34  is  evident.  It  is  improbable  that 
the  verse  stood  in  this  connection  originally  in  Q. 
But  by  whom  was  it  added?  The  likeness  of 
vs.  33  to  Matt.  5: 15  disappears  when  vtto  top  ixbhov 
is  recognized  as  a  harmonistic  redaction.  But  its 
close  relation  to  Luke  8:16  is  too  striking  to  be 
accidental,  ds  kpvttttjv  for  the  concrete  kXlptjs 
of  Luke  8:16  indicates  that  this  is  the  secondary 
form.  Luke  8:16,  itself,  is  clearly  dependent  on 
Mark  4:21.  The  differences  are  explained  by 
Mark's  clumsy  Greek.  It  is  possible  that  the 
evangelist  himself  has  introduced  this  saying  in 
11:33,  but  such  additions  resting  on  mere  verbal 
resemblances  are  quite  foreign  to  his  editorial 
work,  and  it  therefore  seems  more  likely  that,  hke 
vs.  34&,  it  has  slipped  from  the  margin  into  the  text. 


68  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus  .» 

However  that  may  be,  it  ought  not  to  be  ascribed  to 
Q.  After  its  omission  the  connection  of  vss.  32  and 
34  appears;  the  people  called  for  a  sign;  what 
they  needed  was  an  inner  light  with  which  to  see/ 
The  change  from  the  third  to  the  second  person  is 
not  surprising.  These  verses  lead  naturally  to  the 
theme  of  Luke  11:37  ff.  That  whole  section  sets 
forth  the  principle  of  vs.  35.  And  this  is  the  more 
significant  because  Luke's  insertion  of  11:37,  3^^ 
would  indicate  that  he  failed  to  see  the  close  rela- 
tion and  so  made  a  new  beginning.  Surely  it  is 
possible  that  vss.  34^1,  36  (in  the  form  of  S^),  35  did 
follow  vs.  32  in  Q,  and  that  Matthew  has  omitted 
them  because  they  failed  to  mean  anything  to  him 
in  this  connection  and  he  had  already  twice  used  the 
figure  of  the  lamp.  Where- the  text  is  so  obscure 
we  can  do  little  more  than  suggest  possibilities. 
If  Julicher  is  correct  in  his  textual  restoration  of 
Luke  here,  then  little  reason  remains  for  finding 
any  literary  relation  between  Matt.  6:32,  23  and 
Luke  11:33-36.  But  if  the  Texkis  Receptus  is 
retained  and  the  unintelligible  vs.  36  be  omitted  as 
hopelessly  corrupt,  then  either  Matthew  or  Luke 

'  Cf.  Luke  12:54-56.  2  See  below,  pp.  75  f. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  69 

has  changed  the  original  position  of  the  saying.' 
Whichever  form  is  retained,  the  thought  in  this 
context  is  appropriate. 

SECTION      16.      WOES     ON     THE     PHARISEES,      THE 

SCRIBES,  AND   THIS   ADULTEROUS  GENERATION, 

LUKE    11:37-54;    MATT.,   CHAP.    23 

This  section  belongs  really  in  a  class  by  itself. 
The  confidence  with  which  we  have  been  able  to 
assign  all  previous  sections  to  Q  here  must  give 
way  to  mere  probability.  The  problems  are 
similar  to  those  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  but 
much  more  difficult  of  solution.  What  evidence 
have  we  that  we  are  dealing  here  with  a  common 
source  ? 

In  the  first  place,  all  of  Luke  except  the  setting 
is  paralleled  in  Matthew,  but  the  divergence  is 
more  than  usual  and  the  order  quite  different. 
Matt.  23:4  closely  resembles  Luke  11:46  in 
thought,  but  the  language  of  the  two  accounts  is 
not  at  all  ahke.  Much  can  be  said  for  the  view 
that  we  have  here  two  different  translations  of  the 
same  original.  They  might  even  be  independent 
of  each  other.  The  differences,  however,  may  be 
^  See  further,  p.  86. 


70  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

explained  as  due  to  Luke's  stylistic  changes.  His 
text  is  much  smoother  Greek,  while  one  phrase  of 
Matthew  is  very  crude,  Seafievco  <i>opTLa.  It  is  con- 
sistent with  this  that  some  of  the  vigor  of  Matthew 
is  lost  in  Luke,  as  the  force  of  the  contrast  between 
shoulder  and  finger. 

Matt.  23:6  not  only  resembles  Luke  11:43  ^^ 
thought  but  in  language  as  well.  This  condemna- 
tion is  found  in  Mark  12:38,  39  also,  but  the  fact 
that  Matthew  and  Luke  agree  here  against  Mark 
suggests  the  possibility  of  another  source.  This 
coincident  variation  is  the  more  important  because, 
while  Luke  20:46  agrees  with  Mark,  Luke  11:43 
agrees  with  Matthew  against  Mark.  Nor  is  it  at 
all  like  Luke  to  insert  this  woe  here  from  Mark 
and  then  repeat  it  in  the  Markan  connection.  The 
possibility  at  least  suggests  itself  that  Matthew 
and  Luke  are  here  dependent  on  a  non-Markan 
common  source  and  that  Matthew  has  simply 
added  Ti]v  TrpoyroKKiaiav  ev  rots  delTrvoLS  from  Mark. 

Matt.  23 :  13  and  Luke  11:52  seem  to  go  back  to 
a  common  original,  yycoa-ecos  is  certainly  a  later 
substitute  for  the  ^aaCkdav  of  Matthew.  This  is 
shown  by  elarjXdaTe  which  follows.     The  fact  that 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  71 

the  only  other  occurrence  of  yvOxris  in  the  Gospels 
is  in  Luke  1:77^  may  indicate  that  the  change  was 
made  by  him. 

In  Luke  11 142  =  Matt.  23:23  the  only  clear 
indication  of  literary  dependence  is  in  the  last 
clause,  but  this  seems  due  to  later  harmonistic 
influence.  D  omits  it  in  the  text  of  Luke.  The 
clause  is  probably  an  insertion  of  Matthew,  show- 
ing, as  it  does,  the  same  standpoint  as  23:3. 
Nestle^  finds  a  variation  here  due  to  different  read- 
ings of  an  Aramaic  original.  T>i\\  =  shabetha, 
'Rue  =  shabera.  Here  again,  however,  it  is  possible 
that  the  differences  between  the  Gospels  are  entirely 
due  to  the  editorial  changes  of  Luke,  as  Harnack 
supposes.  Further  evidence  of  different  trans- 
lations has  been  found  in  Luke  11:39-41  and 
Matt.  23 :  25,'  26.  Besides  minor  indications  Well- 
hausen  calls  especial  attention  to  86t€  eXerjiioawTiv 
of  Luke,  which  he  regards  as  caused  by  a  misreading 
of  zakki  for  dakki;  but  it  may  be,  with  more  proba- 
bility, a  Lukan  editorial  change.^     Matt.    23:25 

"  Cf.  also  12:47, 48.  ^  ZNW,  1906,  p.  10. 

3  See  Luke  i2:33  =  Matt.  6:19.  Probably  the  whole  verse, 
Luke  11:41,  is  a  Lukan  interpretation  of  the  woe. 


72  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

and  Luke  11:39  ^^e  surely  closely  related,  but 
what  relation,  if  any.  Matt.  23 :  26  and  Luke  11 140, 
41  have  to  each  other  is  hard  to  determine. 

Matt.  23:27  and  Luke  11:44  both  contain  a 
comparison  to  tombs,  but  the  conception  of  each 
is  so  different  as  to  seem  independent.  Luke  has 
not  simply  changed  Matthew  on  the  ground  that 
whitened  sepulchers  would  be  unintelligible  to  his 
readers,  for  Luke  11:44  would  be  even  more  so 
to  anyone  but  a  Jew  who  was  familiar  with  Num. 
19:15.  Matthew's  comparison  is  the  more  evi- 
dent, and  if  any  relationship  can  be  assumed  at 
all,  this  is  the  secondary  form.  The  change  may 
have  been  suggested  by  the  preceding  woe,  to  which 
this  seems  to  have  been  conformed.  Certainly 
the  difference  between  the  two  accounts  is  deep- 
seated  and  we  may  have  two  variant  traditions. 

Matt.  23:29-31  and  Luke  11:47,  48  contain  the 
same  conception,  differently  expressed.  Luke's 
form  is  more  epigrammatic  and  forceful;  by  build- 
ing monuments  to  the  prophets,  they  only  complete 
the  works  of  their  fathers  and  share  in  their  guilt. 
The  implication  is  that  in  this  as  in  their  religious 
observances    all    is    mere    outward    show.    The 


Study  oj  the  Common  Material  73 

thought  is  not  as  clear  as  might  be  wished 
in  either  the  Lukan  or  Matthean  version.  Matt. 
22:33  is  an  editorial  insertion,  but  23:32  may  be 
original. 

Concluding  from  these  woes  that  the  two  gospels 
have  in  common,  only  a  possibility  is  open  that  they 
were  in  Q.  Not  until  we  come  to  Matthew's  epi- 
logue of  this  discourse  do  we  find  a  resemblance 
between  the  two  accounts,  such  as  we  have  always 
found  before,  pointing  decidedly  to  a  common 
Greek  source.  In  Matt.  23:34-36;  Luke  11:49- 
51,  while  we  have  not  an  extended  verbal  likeness, 
if  we  place  the  two  texts  side  by  side  we  see  that 
both  are  built  upon  the  same  words  and  sentence 
structure. 

Matt.:  StoL  rovTO      iSou  eyw   aTrocrriXXixi 

Luke:     Sta  tovto  koI  17  co^ta  ToC  Oeov  ciTrev  aTroo'TeXcii 

Matt.:  irpo^  Vju.as  Trpo<f>T^Ta^  kol  (rot^oiis  Koi  ypafXfiareLS 
Luke:       eis  airovs  irpo<fi-t]Ta<s  kol  aTrooroXovs 

Matt. :  ^i  avrwv  aTTOKTevetTC  kol  (TTavptaaTeTe,  etc. 

Luke:     koL  ii  avriov  diroKTevovcTLV. 

Matt.:   Kat  Siw^cre,  etc.,  OTTWS  fXOy  i<f>*  vfia<;  ttSv 
Luke:     '<at  iKBLw^ovatv       Lva     €K^r}Tr]drj 


74  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

Matt. :        at/ia  StKtttov  €K\vvv6fJL£vov  cTTt  tyjs  yrji 

Luke:     to  alfw.  ttcivtcdv  Toiv  Trpof^rjruiv  to  iK)(vvv6fX€vov 

Luke:     o-Trb  KaTa(So\rj<;  Koafiov  airo  rrj^  ycveas  ravrrjs 

Matt. :   OLTTO  Tov  atfiaros  "A/SeX  tov  SiKaiov  lo>5  rov 
Luke:     aTro         atf^aros'^A/SeX  cws 

Matt.:  at/xaros  Za;(aptov  vlov  Bapa;(t'ov  ov  i<f)Ovev(TaT€ 
Luke:     ai/xaTos  Zta^apiov  rov  aTroXofxivov 

Matt. :  ftcra^i)  TOV  vaov  kol  tov  OvdiacTTn^piov ,  dfxrjv 
Luke:     fiera^v  TOV  Ovcnaa-TrjpLOV  kol  tov  olkov,  vat 

Matt. :  Xeyo)  vfuv  ^^€t  TttVTa  TrdvTa  inl  tyjv  yeveavTavTrjv. 
Luke:    Xeyoi  vpXv  eK^'qrrjdTja-eTaL  oltto  t^s  yeveas  TavTrj's. 

That  the  same  text  here  lies  behind  both  accounts 
seems  certain,  and  we  may  add  that  it  was  prob- 
ably a  Greek  text,  though  this  is  more  doubtful. 
Here  alone  in  this  discourse  can  one  with  some 
measure  of  confidence  attempt  to  restore  an  original 
form.  Matthew,  regarding  Christ  as  Wisdom,  has 
put  the  whole  quotation  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus, 
and  hence  changed  the  third  to  the  second  person; 
and  Luke  has  made  his  usual  changes  to  improve 
the  literary  style.  Matthew  has  also  inserted 
Son  of  Barachiah  and  expanded  the  description 
of  Jewish  persecutions,  and  Luke  has  changed 
"wise  men  and  scribes''  to  "apostles," 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  75 

Inasmuch  as  this  paragraph  is  an  integral  part 
of  the  whole  discourse  in  both  accounts,  the  possi- 
bility that  behind  the  whole  section  lies  some  com- 
mon source  becomes  a  probability.  It  is  in  this 
section  that  the  problem  of  the  relation  which  the 
two  accounts  have  to  an  Aramaic  original  forces 
itself  to  the  front  as  nowhere  else;  but  even  here 
the  evidence  for  two  different  translations  of  such 
a  Semitic  original  is  very  slight.  At  most  we  need 
only  leave  open  the  possibility  of  changes  made  at 
some  time  or  other  from  the  Aramaic.^  Most  of 
the  differences,  if  not  all,  can  be  more  readily 
accounted  for  on  other  grounds. 

We  shall  find  further  support  for  the  theory  that 
the  common  source,  Q,  is  the  basis  of  this  section 
in  Matthew  and  Luke  as  we  examine  the  whole 
discourse  in  the  connection  and  sequence  of  topics 
in  which  the  two  evangelists  give  it.  Luke  has 
prefaced  an  introduction,  which  seems  to  have 
been  suggested  by  Mark  7:1  ff .  Only  in  the  most 
superficial  way  does  it  suit  the  material  which 
follows.  Luke  has  likewise  appended  a  historical 
note  at  the  close,  1 1 :  53,  54.     When  these  additions 

*  See  above,  pp.  17  f. 


76  Matthew's  Sayings  oj  Jesus 

are  omitted,  vs.  39  follows  naturally  enough  after 
vs.  36.'  A  relationship  appears  here  which  is 
independent  of  Luke  and  only  obscured  by  him; 
and  this  confirms  us  in  thinking  that  this  section 
stood  here  in  Q. 

Matthew  himself  gives  a  much  more  elaborate 
introduction,  combining  the  situation  of  Mark 
12:38,  39,  two  woes  of  Luke,  chap.  11,  and  some 
warnings  of  Jesus  to  the  disciples,  found  only  here. 
These  warnings  are  so  awkwardly  inserted  in  23: 
1-3,  where  the  multitudes  of  Mark,  chap.  12,  are 
combined  with  the  disciples,  and  form  such  an 
unsuitable  introduction  to  the  woes  which  follow, 
that  they  may  safely  be  regarded  as  an  addition. 
It  might  be  argued  that  Luke  has  omitted  Matt.  23 : 
2,  3  because  of  their  strongly  Jewish  Christian 
standpoint,  but  their  kinship  to  Matt.  5:17-20,  in 
its  present  composite  form,  adds  to  the  probability 
that  this  is  an  insertion  of  the  first  evangelist. 
Matthew's  introduction  is  therefore  secondary,  and 
there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  he  also  found 
the  common  material,  as  we  have  suggested  that 
Luke  did. 

^  See  above,  p.  68. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  77 

In  the  woes  themselves  we  find  that  Luke  gives 
six,  three  directed  against  the  Pharisees,  three 
against  the  scribes  (''lawyers'^  for  *' scribes''  is 
Lukan).  Such  a  distinction  cannot  be  attributed 
to  the  third  evangelist  himself.  It  certainly  was 
in  the  source  he  used.  The  three  woes  directed 
against  the  Pharisees  are  appropriate,  as  also  are 
the  first  and  last  of  those  against  the  scribes, 
but  the  second  woe  against  the  scribes  seems 
too  general  in  its  application,  and  it  is  note- 
worthy that  the  address  to  the  scribes  is  this  time 
omitted. 

Matthew  on  the  other  hand  has  seven  woes,  all 
but  one  of  which  are  directed  against  ''scribes 
and  Pharisees,  hypocrites";  and  that  woe,  which 
Luke  has  placed  between  the  two  woes  upon  the 
scribes,  Matthew  has  put  at  the  end,  and  the  wis- 
dom quotation  he  has  made  the  epilogue  of  the 
whole  discourse,  vss.  29-36.  Matthew  also  gives 
two  woes  which  are  not  found  in  Luke.  One  of 
these,  vss.  16-22,  has  a  different  epithet  from  the 
rest  of  the  woes,  ''blind  guides,"*  and  reads  much 
more  Hke  a  variant  of  Matt.  5 :  34  ff.,  which  has  been 

*  Matt.  15: 14  uses  the  same  epithet. 


78  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

converted  into  a  woe,  than  like  the  other  condemna- 
tions here  addressed  to  the  Pharisees.  This  has 
probably  been  added  by  Matthew  to  complete 
the  number  seven.  The  woe  of  Matt.  23 :  15,  how- 
ever, is  entirely  appropriate.  Its  omission  by 
Luke  can  be  readily  accounted  for.  Jewish  prose- 
lyting ceased  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  and  seems 
to  have  declined  before  then.^  This  woe  would 
have  no  meaning  to  Luke's  readers.  The  possi- 
bility suggests  itself  that  we  have  here  the  third 
woe  against  the  scribes,  and  that  Luke  found 
further  ground  for  omitting  it  because  he  failed 
to  see  that  the  woe  of  11:47  was  directed  against 
the  multitudes  in  general  and  no  particular  class, 
and  therefore  thought  he  had  one  too  many  for  the 
symmetry  of  the  whole.  This  misunderstanding 
would  explain  also  why  vs.  52  is  placed  at  the 
end;  it  served  to  bind  the  three  woes  together, 
if  all  were  thought  of  as  directed  against  the 
scribes. 

This  correction  in  the  order  of  Luke  on  the  basis 
of  Matthew  gives  us  a  most  tempting  solution  of 
the  problems  of  the  whole  discourse.     In  Q,  Luke 

"  See  Bousset,  Religion  des  Judentutns,  p.  85. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  79 

11:39-41  served  as  the  introduction.  Three  woes 
upon  the  Pharisees  followed,  then  three  upon  the 
scribes,  with  a  concluding  woe  upon  this  generation, 
which  brings  us  back  to  the  situation  of  the  pre- 
ceding section  on  the  demand  for  a  sign.  "This 
generation  is  an  evil  (and  adulterous)  generation," 
Luke  11:29.  Luke's  only  changes  in  this  order 
we  have  just  explained. 

Matthew  has  torn  the  whole  section  out  of 
its  context,  fitting  it  into  the  situation  of  Mark, 
chap.  12.  By  removing  two  of  the  woes  to  use 
them  in  his  introduction  he  has  lost  the  original 
symmetry  of  the  discourse  but  retained  the  plan 
of  having  seven  woes.  The  order  in  which  these 
were  put  was  probably  influenced  by  independent 
sources.  In  our  discussion  above  of  the  woes  which 
both  Gospels  give,  we  saw  that  the  differences,  in 
some  cases  at  least,  pointed  to  variant  tradition 
rather  than  editorial  changes.  Matt.  23:27,  28 
reads  more  like  a  variant  of  Luke  1 1 :  44  and  in 
23:26  the  change  in  number  and  the  use  of  evTos, 
Iktos  for  eaccdep,  e^ccdep  may  indicate  that  in  this 
woe  also  Matthew  is  influenced  by  other  sources. 
The  woe  of  vss.   15-22  is  certainly  an  addition 


8o  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

here.  The  paradoxical  vs.  24  reads  like  a  genuine 
saying  of  Jesus,  but  the  title  ^' blind  guides"  shows 
that  it  is  related  to  vss.  16-22  rather  than  to  the 
material  common  to  Luke.  However,  vs.  5  might 
well  have  been  omitted  by  Luke  as  too  Jewish  in 
its  interest,  but  it  is  as  easily  explained  as  an 
addition;  it  certainly  makes  the  woe  too  full.  The 
warnings,  vss.  2,  3,  76-12,  we  have  already  given 
our  reasons  for  regarding  as  an  insertion.  Matt. 
23: 15  is  the  only  verse  of  this  chapter,  peculiar  to 
Matthew,  which  we  should  be  inclined  to  ascribe  to 
Q.  Whether  the  variations  are  all  to  be  explained 
by  Matthew's  use  of  independent  sources  and 
Luke's  editorial  changes  cannot  be  determined. 
At  least  no  further  explanation  is  necessary. 
Matthew's  independent  source  (or  sources)  may 
itself  have  been  related  to  Q,  probably  to  the 
Aramaic  original  of  Q.  This  would  explain  the 
possible  variant  translations.  If  it  was  only  one 
source,  it  had  both  woes  and  warnings,  and  in 
like  manner  Luke  11:37  if.  ^s  followed  by  a  series 
of  warnings  to  the  disciples,  and  in  this  sequence 
Luke  is  merely  copying  Q. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  8i 

SECTION    17.      WARNING  OF  DANGERS  BEFORE   THE 

DISCIPLES  WITH  ASSURANCES    OF    GOD's  CARE, 

LUKE    12:1-12;    MATT.    10:24-33;    12:32 

When  we  come  to  this  section  we  tread  upon 
firm  ground  again.  In  Matt.  10:266,  28a,  30,  31 
and  Luke  12:2,  4<z,  7  we  have  that  close  verbal 
likeness  which  is  conclusive  evidence  of  a  common 
source.  That  this  source  includes  practically 
the  whole  section  is  shown  by  the  common  sequence 

of  ideas: 

Matt.,       vs.  26  =  Luke,       vs.  2 


27= 

3 

28= 

vss 

.4,  5 

29= 

vs.  6 

vss.  30j3i  = 

7 

vs.  32  = 

8 

33  = 

9 

That  Matthew  should  omit  Luke  12:10  is  most 
natural,  for  he  prefers  to  use  this  verse  in  its 
Markan  connection ,  Matt  .12:31.  In  Matt .12:31, 
32  the  version  of  Mark  and  this  of  Q  are  placed 
side  by  side.  The  difficulty  of  determining  the 
exact  meaning  of  the  verse  in  the  Q  context  may 
have  prompted  Matthew  to  omit  it  there  in  the 
first  place.  That  Luke  transferred  this  sentence 
from  its  context  in  Mark  to  a  position  directly 


82  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

after  12:9  is  impossible  to  believe.  The  omission 
of  Luke  12:11,  12  is  even  more  readily  accounted 
for.  These  verses  have  just  been  given  in  their 
Markan  form,  Matt.  10:19,  20  =  Mark  13:11. 
A  repetition  of  the  warning  in  this  same  discourse 
would  be  absurd.'  There  is  no  reason  to  question 
that  Luke  12:2-12  stood  in  Q.  But  regarding 
12:16  we  cannot  be  so  sure.  The  omission  by 
Matthew  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  this  warning 
is  developed  more  fully  in  Mark  8:141?.  It  is 
also  possible  that  Luke  could  have  introduced 
it  from  there.  In  itself  the  former  alternative 
seems  the  more  likely.  The  objection  has  been 
raised  that  there  is  no  logical  connection  between 
i2:i&  and  12:2.  No  doubt  the  soundest  exegesis 
of  this  whole  section  will  consider  it  as  a  collection 
of  more  or  less  independent  sayings,  but  all  are 
on  the  general  theme  of  warnings  to  the  disciples. 
Thus  viewed,  12:16  appears  as  an  appropriate 
introduction  connecting  these  warnings  with  the 
preceding  woes.    Luke  12:16  is  as  closely  related 

*  This  is  a  strong  indication  that  Mark  10: 17-22  is  not  taken 
from  Q,  as  Bernhard  and  Johannes  Weiss  have  maintained.  If 
Matthew  is  here  using  a  source  of  Mark  it  is  an  independent 
one. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  83 

to  12:2  as  12:3  is  to  12:4.  This  value  of  12:1b 
as  an  introduction  to  12:2  ff.  favors  the  view  that 
Luke  found  it  here  in  his  source  if,  as  we  shall  try- 
later  to  show,  his  sequence  here  is  that  of  Q.^  The 
evangehst  himself  has  supplied  a  historical  intro- 
duction of  his  own,  12:  la,  and  this  shows  no  con- 
nection whatever  with  Mark  8:14  ff.  The  people 
who  are  out  of  place  in  vss.  2-12  are  probably 
mentioned  to  prepare  for  vs.  15.  Matt.  10:24,  25 
are  also  doubtful  verses.  They  may  have  stood 
here  ^n  Q  and  been  omitted  by  Luke,  but  see 
further,  p.  107. 

Remembering  then  that  Luke  12:1  and  Matt. 
10: 24,  25  are  questionable,  we  may  with  confidence 
assign  this  whole  section  to  Q.  But  as  usual  it 
is  a  hazardous  task  choosing  an  original  text  from 
the  alternatives  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  Jiilicher^ 
has  very  thoroughly  discussed  vss.  2  and  3.  His 
discussion  shows  that  Luke  1 2 : 2  is  an  independent 
variant  of  Mark  4:22,  and  that  the  text  of  Matthew 
in  10:27  is  not  necessarily  more  original  than  that 

*  A  further  argument  from  the  context,  if  this  is  the  sequence  of 
Q,  appears  in  the  condemnation  of  the  Pharisees  for  hypocrisy  in 
the  preceding  woes,  Luke  ii:44  =  Matt.  23: 27. 

"  See  Die  Gleichnisreden  Jesu,  pp.  91-97. 


84  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

of  Luke  12:3.  The  change  in  person  may  be  due 
to  an  original  first  person  plural  or  to  an  impersonal 
passive,  which  both  editors  interpreted  differently. 
In  vss.  4,  5  (  =  Matt.  10:28)  the  differences  can,  for 
the  most  part,  be  attributed  to  Lukan  changes. 
The  text  of  Matthew  is  more  pointed  and  epi- 
grammatic. In  vss.  6,  7  (  =  Matt.  10:29-31)  also 
the  priority  belongs  rather  to  Matthew,  though 
the  Lukan  price  of  sparrows  seems  original  and  tov 
irarpos  vficov  is  conceded  by  all  to  be  secondary. 
"My  Father  who  is  in  heaven"  is  a  Matthean 
expression.  Luke's  phrase  seems  more  original. 
It  is  found  also  in  Luke  15:10,  which  may  belong 
toQ. 

The  significance  of  vs.  10  in  this  connection  is 
very  obscure.  It  seems  intended  to  define  what 
is  meant  by  "denying  me  in  the  presence  of  men," 
which  we  find  in  the  preceding  verse.  Possibly 
it  is  intended  merely  to  qualify  that  verse.  Well- 
hausen  is  probably  correct  in  his  emendation  of 
the  text  here  on  the  basis  of  D  and  Marcion.^ 
Matt.  12:32  also  supports  the  emendation. 

*  "Whoever  says  anything  against  the  Son  of  Man  it  shall 
be  forgiven  him,  but  against  the  Holy  Spirit  it  shall  not  be  for- 
given." 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  85 

SECTION    18.      INSTRUCTIONS    TO    SEEK    THE    KING- 
DOM AND   LEAVE   ALL  ELSE   TO   GOD,    LUKE 
12: (13-21)    22-24;    MATT.   6:19-34 

The  question  whether  or  not  Luke  12:13-21 
belongs  to  Q  will  have  to  be  deferred.^  The  rela- 
tion of  Luke  12:22-24  to  Matt.  6:19-34  is  such 
as  to  leave  no  possible  doubt  in  our  minds  that 
both  evangelists  are  using  a  common  source. 
Matt.  6:21,  25-33  shows  the  closest  verbal  resem- 
blance to  Luke  12:2  2-3 1,34.  The  most  important 
difference  is  that  Matthew  has  placed  Luke  12:33, 
34  at  the  beginning  instead  of  at  the  end  of  the 
discourse.  At  least  as  far  as  the  change  in  order 
is  concerned  Matthew  must  be  responsible  for  the 
difference.  The  reason  is  apparent.  He  has 
placed  this  section  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
just  after  that  contrast  between  human  and  divine 
rewards  which  he  gives  in  6:1-18;  vss.  19,  20 
therefore  furnish  the  proper  transition  to  the  ma- 
terial which  he  here  introduces.  On  the  other 
hand,  after  Luke  12:21  the  Matthean  sequence 
would,  if  anything,  be  more  appropriate  than  the 
order  Luke  himself  gives;  and  it  is  not  evident  that 

*  See  p.  168. 


86  MaUhew*s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

these  verses  form  a  better  transition  to  what 
follows  in  Luke  12:35.  It  is  interesting  to  note 
that  Matthew  has  retained  the  5td  tovto  of  Luke 
12:22,  although  it  is  no  longer  so  appropriate  in 
the  new  context. 

Matt.  6:22,  23  is  appropriate  in  the  setting 
which  Matthew  has  given  it  here,  but,  as  we  have 
seen,  it  is  equally  so  in  its  Lukan  context,  1 1 :  34-36 ; 
and  the  other  changes  of  Matthew  here  make  it 
safer  to  regard  the  position  given  to  it  by  Luke 
as  original,  rather  than  this  which  it  has  in 
Matthew.  The  latter's  setting  is  usually  suitable. 
It  is  only  when  he  fails  to  understand  a  saying  that 
he  places  it  in  an  awkward  context.  It  is  not 
certain,  however,  that  he  is  here  following  the 
common  source  at  all.  The  resemblance  to  Luke 
may  be  entirely  due  to  harmonistic  redaction.^ 
Matt.  6:24  fits  beautifully  into  this  context  of  the 
First  Gospel,  but  for  this  very  reason  is  the  more 
likely  to  be  an  insertion  of  Matthew.  That  Luke 
should  remove  it  to  its  isolated  position  in  16: 13 
then  becomes  inexplicable.  Matt.  6:34  is  possibly 
also  an  addition  of  the  evangelist,  though  in  this 

*  See  above,  p.  69. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  87 

case  it  is  more  probable  that  Luke  has  omitted 
instead  of  Matthew's  having  added.  Luke  12:32 
is  the  only  verse  of  Luke  which  is  not  found  in 
Matthew  as  well,  and  this  certainly  belonged  to  Q. 
In  details  Matthew  is  truer  to  the  original  than 
Luke.  But  "ravens"  for  "birds  of  the  heaven," 
and  "God"  for  "Heavenly  Father,"  Luke  12:24, 
are  to  be  preferred.  Luke  is  also  correct  in  reading 
"kingdom"  without  "righteousness"  in  12:31. 
That  Matthew  is  more  original  in  6: 19-21  is  shown 
by  Luke's  retention  of  ovhe  arjs  5ta<^€tp€t,  despite 
the  fact  that  he  has  limited  the  treasure  to  money. 
Luke  has  interpreted  this  passage  to  accord  with 
the  teaching  of  his  special  material  in  chap.  16, 
giving  it  this  definite  application. 

SECTION  19.   PARABLES  TEACHING  THE  NEED  OF 

WATCHFULNESS  FOR  THE  COMING  OF  THE  SON 

OF  MAN,  LUKE  12:35-48;  MATT.  24:42-51 

Luke  gives  three  parables  here,  two  of  which 
are  found  also  in  Matthew  in  practically  the  same 
words.  Omitting  for  the  present  the  problem 
whether  that  one  which  is  peculiar  to  Luke  was 
found  in  Q,  we  can  positively  affirm  that  the  other 
two    were    found    in    that    source.    The    verbal 


88  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

agreement  between  24:43-51  and  Luke  12:39,  40, 
42-46  is  conclusive  regarding  this.  In  the  first 
of  these  parables  the  differences  are  too  insig- 
nificant to  concern  us.  In  the  second,  however, 
Luke  has  applied  an  interpretation  to  the  parable 
which  has  affected  the  form  of  its  presentation.  By 
the  question  of  Peter  which  is  inserted  in  12 :  41  this 
last  parable  is  given  a  definite  application  to  the 
twelve.  Special  responsibilities  rest  upon  them. 
It  is  in  accordance  with  this  that  hovKos  is  replaced 
by  oiKovbixos  in  vs.  42  and  avvhovKovs  is  changed  in 
vs.  45.  The  two  verses  which  Luke  has  appended 
at  the  close  are  also  placed  here  because  of  this 
interpretation  of  Luke.  They  may  rest  upon  some 
good  tradition,  but  they  are  an  insertion  here. 
Changes  made  by  Matthew  are  insignificant; 
<TiTO}ieTpiov  is  probably  more  original  than  Tpotpi} 
in  vs.  45. 

SECTION  20.      WARNING  OF  A  PERIOD  OF  STRIFE  AND 
DISASTER,    LUKE    12:49-53;    MATT.    10:34-36 

In  this  short  section  we  cannot  be  so  sure  of  the 
presence  of  Q  as  we  would  wish.  But  Matt.  10:34 
and  Luke  12:51  rest  on  the  same  source : 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  89 

Matt. :  M^  vofitcn^e  otl  "^XOov  fSaXetv  elprjvrjv 

Luke:     Ao/cetre  otl  eipi^vrjv  Trapeyevofxrjv    Sovvai 

Matt. :  €7rt  TYjv  yrjv  '      ovk  ■^\6ov  (3aXeLv  elp-^VYfv 
Luke:      iv    ry    yrj  ;      ov\l  Acyo)  vfuv 

Matt. :   dAXa      /xa^atpav 
Luke:     aXA,'  rj  Sutfiepia-fjiov 

Luke  uses  more  elegant  Greek,  but  Matthew 
preserves  the  Semitic  paralleHsm  and  is  probably 
original.  Still,  the  interrogatory  form  of  Luke, 
8oKeLT€  for  nij  vonLa-qre,  seems  to  deserve  priority  (so 
Harnack) .  Matt.  10:35  ^^^  Luke  12:53  certainly 
are  derived  from  a  common  source,  but  since  this 
verse  is  found  in  Mic.  7:6  it  does  not  mean  so 
much  as  it  otherwise  would.  The  form  of  the 
saying  is  much  more  simple  and  direct  in  Matthew 
than  in  Luke.  One  can  hardly  doubt  that  it  is 
Luke  who  has  expanded.  Matthew  may  also 
have  added  vs.  36,  the  closing  clause  of  Mic.  7:6. 
That  Matthew  omits  the  two  verses  with  which 
this  section  begins  in  Luke  can  be  explained  by 
the  context  of  chap.  10,  where  the  personal  note 
of  these  verses  would  be  out  of  place.  Matthew 
likewise  omits  the  reference  of  Mark   10:38   to 


go  Matthew^s  Sayings  oj  Jesus 

Christ's  baptism  of  suffering.    Has  he  some  repug- 
nance to  this  comparison  ? 

SECTIONS  21  AND  22.  SIGNS  OF  THE  TIMES  AND 
THE  NEED  OF  REPENTANCE,  LUKE  12:54-56 
(matt.  i6:2&,  3);  THE  APPROACHING  JUDG- 
MENT, LUKE  12:57-59;  MATT.  5:25,  26 

In  Luke  12:54-56  we  have  a  passage  which 
strangely  enough  has  a  parallel  in  many  MSS 
of  Matt.  16:1-4,  which,  moreover,  is  so  different 
that  it  cannot  be  a  mere  scribal  transference  from 
Luke.  This  would  simply  be  another  example 
of  Matthew's  general  method  of  inserting  Q  sayings 
in  a  Markan  context,  if  only  the  MSS  gave  us 
sufficient  reason  for  believing  that  it  stood  originally 
in  the  Gospel  of  Matthew.  Matt.  16: 2 J,  3  is 
omitted  by  5^,  B,  V,  X,  13,  24,  556,  157,  Ss.  Sc.  Jer. 
(in  most  MSS),  Cop.  Orig.  They  are  given  by 
2,  3,  C,  D,  e,  a,  b  (K  is  wanting  here),  Jer.  (in  some 
MSS),  Hil.,  Vulg.,  Si.^  The  MS  authority  cer- 
tainly favors  the  omission;  but  where  D  and  the 
Old  Latin  cannot  be  accused  of  harmonizing,  their 
testimony  has  weight.  Comparing  the  addition 
with  Luke  12:54-56,  the  principal  difference  we 
*  Evidence  taken  from  Zahn,  Kom.  Mat.,  in  loc. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  91 

observe  is  the  change  which  is  made  in  the  weather 
signs.  Those  which  Luke  gives  are  suitable  only 
to  Palestine^  and  might  readily  be  changed  when 
the  sayings  of  Jesus  were  given  a  wider  circle  of 
readers.  They  would  be  especially  inappropriate 
in  Rome,  where  many  suppose  the  First  Gospel 
was  written.  The  conclusion  in  both  gospels 
shows  literary  relationship: 

Matt. :  TO    fixv  7rp6<r<t)7rov  tov  ovpavov 

Luke:     to  Trpoawirov  t^s  y^s  kol  tov  ovpavov 

Matt.:  yivoxTKCTe  SiojcpLveiv,  ra  8c  a-rjfieLa  twv  Kaiplov 
Luke:     olBare  8oKLfxd^€Lv^  TOV  Kaipov  Se  tovtov 

Matt. :  ov  Svvaa-Oe  ; 

Luke:    ■wtos  ovk  otSarc  SoKi/xa^civ; 

It  is  hard  to  believe  that  the  same  text  does  not 
underlie  these  variants,  ttjs  yijs  /cat  Wellhausen 
has  shown  to  be  an  addition  in  Luke,^  and  the 
other  changes  look  like  literary  improvements  of 
that  evangelist.  Such  likeness  with  so  much 
variation  and  the  location  which  the  passage  has 
in  Matthew  are  excellent  circumstantial  evidence 

*  See  Plummer,  Com.  Luke,  in  loc. 
'See  Kom.  Luk.,  in  loc. 


92  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

that  Matthew  himself  wrote  i6 :  26, 3.  If  he  did  not 
make  this  insertion  in  the  saying  taken  here  from 
Mark,  someone  so  Hke  him  in  method  did  that  we 
cannot  tell  the  difference.  But  apart  from  this 
doubtful  testimony  of  Matthew  the  fact  that  it  is 
combined  by  Luke  with  a  passage  which  Matthew 
certainly  gives,  but  not  in  its  original  setting,  as  we 
shall  try  to  show,  supports  its  claim  to  a  place  in 
Q.  Moreover,  the  teaching  of  the  passage  repre- 
sents exactly  the  same  standpoint  that  we  find 
in  Q,  Luke  11:29  ff.;  Matt.  12:38  ff. 

It  is  time  now  to  consider  the  section  which  fol- 
lows in  Luke  12:57-59;  Matt.  5:25,  26.  Despite 
the  very  different  interpretations  which  Matthew 
and  Luke  put  upon  this  passage,  it  must  be  regarded 
as  coming  from  their  common  source.  Matt. 
5:26  and  Luke  12:59  are  almost  word  for  word 
the  same.  Luke  has  merely  substituted  the  more 
appropriate,  better  Greek  word  '\eirrbv  for  KodpdvTrjv. 
In  Matt.  5:25  and  Luke  12:58  the  differences 
are  greater,  but  the  same  sentence  structure  appears 
in  both.  While  a  common  source  seems  required, 
its  exact  language  cannot  be  restored.  TrpaKTcop 
is  no  doubt  to  be  preferred  to  the  commonplace 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  93 

VTTTjpiTrjs ;  KaTaavprj  and  aTnyXXax^at  of  Luke  are  both 
more  striking,  vigorous  terms,  but  not  necessarily- 
more  original.  The  Latinism  56s  epyaalap  is  very 
puzzling.  If  Kohpavrrjv  was  changed  to  Xeirrbv,  it 
surely  was  not  the  same  editor  who  inserted  this 
phrase,  though  he  might  have  allowed  it  to  remain 
if  he  had  it  before  him. 

Because  of  its  bearing  upon  the  problem  raised 
by  the  preceding  section,  the  question  of  the  posi- 
tion of  this  passage  ought  perhaps  to  be  discussed 
in  anticipation  of  what  is  to  be  said  on  this  general 
theme  later.  The  first  difficulty  is  in  trying  to 
learn  exactly  what  the  saying  means.  Even 
Jlilicher's^  discussion  is  not  very  illuminating. 
In  its  Matthean  context  he  understands  it  to  be  a 
vivid  concrete  warning  to  live  up  to  the  fifth  peti- 
tion of  the  Lord's  Prayer  in  its  full  force.  But  he 
recognizes  that  there  is  even  in  the  Matthean  form 
of  this  saying  an  eschatological  tone  which  is  incon- 
sistent with  such  an  interpretation.  In  its  Lukan 
context  he  finds  here  ^'nur  eine  bildliche  Darstel- 
lung  des  biKaiov  das  dem  Urteil  der  Massen  leider 
bisher  fehlt."     But  obscure  as  vs.  57  certainly  is, 

*  See  Die  Gleichnisreden  Jesu,  p.  240. 


94  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

something  more  of  a  connection  with  what  pre- 
cedes is  surely  meant.  The  multitudes  are  told 
in  the  preceding  verses,  54-56,  to  interpret  the  signs 
of  the  times  as  truly  as  they  interpret  the  weather 
signs.  The  best  commentary  on  this  saying  is  to 
be  found  in  Luke  11 :  29  ff.  (Q).  What  is  going  on 
in  their  midst,  and  especially  the  teaching  of  Jesus, 
ought  to  warn  them  of  the  need  of  repentance. 
Attention  is  directed  to  the  judgment  of  God  which 
threatens  them.  Verse  57  seems  to  say  that  if  they 
examined  their  own  conduct  honestly  they  would 
learn  the  same  lesson.  In  their  own  affairs  they 
recognized  the  importance  of  making  peace  with  an 
adversary  before  the  case  progressed  so  far  that 
reconciliation  was  impossible.  Taking,  then,  them- 
selves as  an  example,  they  should  use  as  much 
concern  in  avoiding  God's  judgment  as  they  would 
in  escaping  the  judgment  of  men.  The  obscurity 
of  the  passage  is  largely  due  to  the  form  of  the 
parable.  It  is  given  as  a  command,  and  the  deeper 
meaning  is  only  implied  by  the  pregnant  atxi^v  X^7w 
cot.  This  is  not  necessarily  against  the  original- 
ity of  the  form  here.  All  of  Jesus'  parables  cannot 
be  conformed  to  the  quiet,  calm  tone  of  the  *'wise" 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  95 

man.  As  it  stands,  it  is  not  necessary  to  give  an 
allegorical  interpretation  to  every  feature.  It  can 
still  be  a  true  parable  though  in  this  dramatic  form. 
The  objections,  therefore,  which  Jiilicher  has  pre- 
sented against  this  Lukan  position  of  Sec.  22  seem 
exaggerated,  and,  as  he  himself  acknowledges, 
the  position  in  Matthew  is  out  of  the  question. 
The  eschatological  tone  demands  a  context  differ- 
ent from  that  of  Matt.  5: 25  but  like  that  of  Luke, 
chap.  12.  It  is  also  a  recognized  fact  that  Matt., 
chaps.  5-7,  is  an  editorial  composition  which  raises 
a  natural  presumption  in  favor  of  the  Lukan  loca- 
tion. Now  if  Sec.  22  belongs  in  the  connection 
which  Luke  gives,  then  we  may  well  believe  that 
Sec.  21  also  stood  in  Q  whether  or  not  it  stood  in 
Matthew  also. 

SECTION     24.^      PARABLES     SHOWING     THE     HIDDEN 
POWER  OF  THE   KINGDOM,   LUKE    13:18-21; 
MATT.    13:31-33 

These  two  parables  were  both  found  in  Q  by 
Matthew  and  Luke.  Luke  has  retained  them 
practically  as  they  were  in  the  source.  Matthew 
agrees  with  Luke  verbally  in  the  second,  but  has 

*  For  Sec.  23,  which  is  found  only  in  Luke,  see  p.  170. 


96  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

combined  Q  and  Mark  in  the  first.  In  vs.  31, 
ojLiota  idTiv  ....  KbKK(jo  (TLvaweois,  6j^  Xa^chv  av- 
dpoiTTOs  .  .  .  .  ev  TOO  ayp(2  (?)  avTov,  and  in  vs.  32, 
hivbpov  .  .  .  .  ev  rots  /cXaSots  avrov  show  the  in- 
fluence of  Q. 

SECTION    25.      DISCOURSE    ON   THOSE    WHO   ARE    TO 

ENTER  THE   KINGDOM,   LUKE    13:23-30; 

MATT.    7:13,  14,  21-23;    8:11,  12 

What  Luke  gives  in  one  section  is  reflected  at 
least  in  these  three  different  passages  of  Matthew. 
Matt.  7:13,  14  is  somehow  related  to  Luke  13:23, 
24.  Matt.  7 :  21-23  shows  a  connection  with  Luke 
13:256,  26,  27,  and  Matt.  8:11,  12  must  be  closely 
related  to  Luke  11:28,  29.  In  the  last  case  literary 
evidence  of  a  common  source  is  conclusive.  In 
Matt.  7:21-23  there  is  clearly  a  conflation  of  two 
conceptions.^  The  one  is  that  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  which  condemns  those  who  make  pro- 
fessions and  do  not  carry  out  the  teachings  in  their 
lives;  and  the  other  is  a  condemnation  of  those 
who  claim  admittance  to  the  kingdom  because 
of  privileges  they  have  enjoyed  or  powers  they 

*  See  above,  p.  29. 


Study  oj  the  Common  Material  97 

have  shown.  This  latter  conception  is  that  of 
Luke  in  the  section  before  us.  /cupte,  which  appar- 
ently means  only  ^'  teacher  "  in  Luke  6 :  46,  is  escha- 
tological  in  Matt.  7:21,  as  it  is  in  Luke  13:256. 
The  relation  between  Luke  13:27  and  Matt.  7:23 
is  close  throughout.  In  Matthew,  however,  those 
rejected  base  their  claim  upon  the  works  they 
have  done  in  the  name  of  Christ;  the  evangelist 
still  has  the  false  prophets  of  7 :  15  in  mind.  Luke, 
on  the  other  hand,  contrasts  the  Jews  who  have  had 
the  privilege  of  being  with  Jesus,  and  the  Gentiles. 
The  form  of  Matthew  is  certainly  secondary^  and 
Luke's  connection  with  13 :  28,  29  may  well  be  ori- 
ginal. Inasmuch  as  this  passage  is  an  insertion  in 
Matthew,  the  probability  that  it  was  taken  from 
the  Lukan  context  is  increased.  It  is  also  impor- 
tant that  a  few  verses  before  this,  in  Matt.  7:13, 
we  have  the  eiaekdelv  Slcl  ttjs  aTevrjs  ttvKtis  (Ovpas) 
of  Luke  13 :  24.  The  rest  of  Matt.  7 :  13,  14  might 
be  regarded  as  an  adaptation  of  this  saying  to  the 
practical  precepts  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  by 
combining  it  with  the  common  Jewish  conception 
of  the  two  ways,  the  way  of  life  and  the  way  of 

*  Note  also  what  is  said  below,  p.  125. 


98  MaUhew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

death;  but  of  this  there  will  be  more  to  say  pres- 
ently. That  Matt.  7:13,  14,  21,  22  stood  in  some 
source  independent  of  their  present  connection 
is  certain,  and,  since  they  can  be  readily  under- 
stood on  the  basis  that  this  evangelist  had  Luke 
13:23-30  before  him  (allowing  of  course  for 
changes  on  the  part  of  Luke),  this  gives  us  our 
simplest  and  most  natural  hypothesis.  The  one 
saying  of  Luke  here  omitted,  13 :  28,  29,  is  inserted 
very  aptly  in  connection  with  the  incident  imme- 
diately following,  Matt.  8:11,  12.  This  theory  is 
also  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  we  have  in  these 
scattered  fragments  of  Matthew  the  order  of  Luke 
still  preserved. 

But  while  we  have  good  assurance  that  this 
section  stood  in  Q,  the  exact  form  of  Q  can  only  be 
conjectured.  The  free  use  which  Matthew  has 
made  of  this  material  renders  it  difficult  to  eliminate 
the  changes  made  by  Luke.  The  problem  is 
whether  Luke  has  combined  three  sayings,  only 
loosely  connected  in  Q,  into  a  closer  unity  or 
whether  all  the  changes  have  been  made  by 
Matthew.  In  favor  of  the  former  it  may  be  urged 
that    such    loose    connection,    where    the    theme 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  99 

remains  the  same,  is  not  unknown  in  Q,'  and  the 
separation  into  three  different  contexts  on  the  part 
of  Matthew  becomes  more  natural  if  this  was  the 
case.  Again  attention  has  been  called  to  the  rela- 
tionship between  Luke  13:25,  the  verse  which 
forms  a  connecting  link  in  Luke,  and  Matt.  25: 11, 
12,  the  conclusion  of  the  parable  of  the  Ten  Virgins. 
The  situation  is  similar  in  both  cases,  the  closed 
door,  and  some  shut  out  who  cry  for  admittance, 
almost  in  the  same  words,  Kupte  [Kupte]  avoi^ov  rujuv. 
In  the  reply  at  least  one  clause  is  common  to  both, 
ovK  oUa  vfxas.  But  in  Luke,  chap.  13,  it  is  a  house- 
holder and  not  a  bridegroom,  nor  is  there  any 
reference  to  the  feast^  and  the  virgins.  Luke's 
familiarity  with  Matthew's  parable  of  the  Ten 
Virgins  can  by  no  means  be  argued  from  this  like- 
ness, nor,  on  the  other  hand,  are  we  justified  in 
arguing,  with  Wellhausen,  that  Matthew's  parable 
is  only  an  amplification  of  this  saying.  The  point 
of  contact  is  too  slight.     Still,  it  remains  possible 

*  See  especially  Luke  1 2 :  i  ff , 

'J.  Weiss  regards  ^y^pdv  as  such  a  reference,  but  it  only 
emphasizes  the  act  of  shutting  the  door  according  to  good 
Semitic  usage. 


loo  Matthew^ s  Sayings  oj  Jesus 

that  Luke  has  inserted  this  verse  from  the  situation 
described  in  some  recension  of  the  parable  of  the 
Ten  Virgins  known  to  him,  thinking  that  the  same 
situation  was  impHed  here.  Such  editorial  han- 
dling of  material  is  consistent  with  Luke's  method, 
as  shown  elsewhere,  and  seems,  on  the  whole,  an 
easier  explanation  than  to  ascribe  all  the  change  to 
Matthew.  The  probability  then  arises  that  Matt. 
7:136,  14  is  not  to  be  explained  on  the  basis  of 
Luke  13:24,  but  rather  that  Luke  for  the  sake  of 
closer  connection  has  changed  ttuXt;  to  Bhpa  and 
generalized  7 :  13&,  14  into  13 :  246.  According  to 
this  view,  Matthew,  in  his  characteristic  manner, 
found  in  his  discourses  suitable  settings  for  these 
more  or  less  independent  sayings.  But  Luke, 
under  the  influence  of  other  tradition,  gave  the 
sayings  a  new  setting,  which  bound  them  into  a 
closer  unity.^ 

In  Matt.  8:11,  12  and  Luke  13:28,  29  it  is  im- 
material which  gives  the  true  order  of  the  clauses; 
the  sense  is  the  same.     The  fact  that  **  there  shall 

^  Wellhausen  in  his  commentary  prefers  the  Lukan  form 
throughout  this  section.  Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  I,  130,  argues 
for  that  of  Matthew.  See  also  Harnack,  p.  67,  and  Jiilicher,  Die 
Gteichnisreden  Jesu,  II,  458. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  loi 

be  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth"  has  been 
adopted  by  Matthew  as  a  common  concluding 
clause,  and  that,  therefore,  he  would  be  more  in- 
clined to  treat  it  in  the  same  way  here,  is  of  more 
weight  than  all  the  evidence  brought  forth  by 
Harnack  (p.  56)  for  the  priority  of  Matthew. 
Luke  has  the  clause  only  here.  More  important 
is  Harnack's  suggestion  that  e/c/JaXXcjueVous  and 
e^eXevaoPTai  are  not  necessarily  different  transla- 
tions of  appeq.  Luke  may  have  made  the  change 
with  only  the  Greek  e^eKevaovTai  before  him. 
Luke  13:30  is  an  addition  of  the  evangelist.  It  is 
not  likely  that  Matthew  would  have  omitted  it  if 
it  stood  in  Q.' 

.SECTION  26.      LAMENT  OVER  FORSAKEN  JERUSALEM, 
LUKE    13:34,35;    MATT.    23:37-39 

For  our  present  purpose  we  need  only  call  atten- 
tion to  the  close  verbal  resemblance  which  shows  a 
common  source.  eprjfjLos  may  be  regarded  as 
original  in  the  text  of  Matthew  but  it  does  not 
belong  to  Q. 

*  See  further  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature,  1906,  Part  II, 
pp.  97  ff.,  article  by  F.  C.  Porter. 


I02  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

SECTION      27.      FEARFUL     COST     OF     DISCIPLESHIP, 
LUKE    14:25-27  (28-35);    MATT.  10:37,38 

No  striking  verbal  likeness  is  found  here  but  a 
close  similarity  in  thought  and  logical  sequence, 
nor  are  the  changes  hard  to  understand.  Re- 
garded by  itself  alone  it  would  be  questionable 
whether  it  belonged  to  Q,  but  when  its  position  in 
the  two  Gospels  is  considered  the  probability 
becomes  overwhelming.'  In  Luke,  vs.  25  may  well 
be  an  editorial  introduction,  though  it  is  very 
appropriate  here  and  its  omission  by  Matthew  was 
necessary.  Verse  26  seems  to  have  been  expanded 
for  the  sake  of  completeness.  The  Semitic  paral- 
lelism of  Matthew  supports  its  claim  to  priority. 
But  Matthew  has  changed  "is  able  to  be  my  dis- 
ciple'^ to  "is  worthy  of  me."  aftos  is  a  favorite 
term  of  Matthew  in  this  discourse,  10:10,  11,  13. 
On  the  principle  that  we  should  accept  the  harder 
reading,  ixidel  of  Luke  is  preferable  to  the  ^tXwj' 
....  uTTcp  e/xe  of  Matthew. 

SECTION   28.      MISCELLANEOUS   SAYINGS 

This  group  of  almost  isolated  sayings  we  find 
in  Luke,  chaps.  15,  16,  17,  interspersed  with  inde- 
»Seep.  1 18. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  103 

pendent  material.  In  Matthew  they  are  placed 
in  different,  usually  appropriate,  contexts.  The 
degree  of  resemblance  varies. 

The  parable  of  the  Sheep,  Luke  15:4-7;  Matt. 
18:12,  13,  has  apparently  been  adapted  by  Luke 
to  the  situation  he  has  created  under  the  influence 
of  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son.  Matthew,  on 
the  other  hand,  has  applied  it  to  the  problems  of 
church  discipline.  Of  the  two,  certainly  Luke 
deserves  the  priority,  for  as  we  have  seen  Q  was 
deeply  concerned  in  the  importance  of  repentance. 
No  theme  occurs  there  more  frequently.  But  the 
very  fact  that  Matthew  has  interpreted  it  so  differ- 
ently would  indicate  that  Luke  15:7,  true  to  the 
parable  as  it  is,  did  not  stand  in  his  source. 
Beneath  these  differences  there  is  an  even  more 
striking  likeness;  the  essential  features  are  the 
same  in  both  accounts  and  the  ideas  are  presented 
in  the  same  sequence.  This  parable  may,  there- 
fore, have  stood  in  Q,  but  if  it  did  it  was  in  the 
form  which  Luke  gives  rather  than  that  of  Matthew, 
though  Luke  also  has  probably  made  minor  linguis- 
tic changes,  such  as  epi]yL(j3  for  opt),  and  t6  awoKuiKbs 
for  TO  Tr\av6)fxepov. 


I04  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

God  and  Mammon,  Luke  16:13;  Matt.  6:24, 
is  another  of  this  group  of  sayings;  the  unmistak- 
able verbal  likeness  here  shows  that  it  belonged 
toQ. 

Storming  the  Kingdom,  Luke  16:16;  Matt.  11: 
12,  13,  is  hardly  a  saying  which  would  have  been 
long  preserved  except  as  it  stood  in  writing.  More- 
over, the  very  difficulty  of  understanding  it  would 
favor  editorial  change.  Matthew  has  used  it  to 
show  that  John  the  Baptist,  while  not  in  the  king- 
dom, was  still  the  Elias  whose  coming  would  intro- 
duce it.  In  Luke  no  plausible  connection  with  its 
context  has  as  yet  been  proposed.  The  three  say- 
ings of  16:16,  17,  18  seem  entirely  out  of  place, 
though  they  have  a  sort  of  unity  in  themselves, 
each  correcting  a  possible  misinterpretation  of  the 
other.  That  16:16  does  not  mean  that  the  law  is 
no  longer  of  value  is  shown  by  16:17,  and  16:18 
may  be  regarded  as  an  illustration  of  the  way  in 
which  the  law  is  still  valid.  Harnack  has  well  said 
that  Luke  and  Matthew  probably  did  not  them- 
selves understand  what  this  saying  meant.  The 
form  in  which  Matthew  gives  it  is  the  more  diffi- 
cult and  on  this  account  deserves  the  preference. 


Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus  105 

The  similar  passage  in  Edujoth  viii,  7,  quoted  by 
B.  W.  Bacon  in  the  Expositor^  July,  1902,  and  by 
Allen  in  his  commentary  on  Matthew,  indicates 
how  this  obscure  saying  gives  to  the  Baptist  the 
functions  of  the  coming  Elias  and  favors  the 
connection  with  Matt.  11:14.  Luke  may  have 
omitted  Matt.  11:14  because  he  failed  to  see  any 
relation.  It  is  also  possible  that  he  objected  to  the 
idea.     We  note  that  he  has  omitted  Mark  8:9-13. 

Validity  of  the  law,  Luke  16:17;  Matt.  5:18. 
This  time  it  is  Luke  who  gives  the  saying  in  its 
harder  form.  It  may  be  that,  as  Harnack  (p.  56) 
suggests,  this  is  due  to  later  Hellenistic  exaltation  of 
the  Old  Testament,  but  the  literary  evidence  does 
not  oppose  but  favors  the  priority  of  Luke.  The 
two  ecos  av  clauses  in  Matthew  cannot  possibly  be 
original.  The  simple,  clear  statement  of  Luke  is 
not  secondary.  Still,  such  a  detail  as  Iwra  Iv  rj  may 
have  been  omitted  by  him. 

Adultery,  Luke  16:18;  Matt.  5:32,  is  also  to  be 
compared  with  Mark  10:11.  Here  if  anywhere 
in  Luke  is  a  case  of  conflation.^  Retaining  the 
form  of  Matt.  5:32  as  far  as  possible,  he  gives 

^  So  Harnack,  p.  57. 


io6  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

it  the  sense  of  Mark  io:ii.  Of  course,  iraptKTos 
\6yov  iropvelas  is  an  insertion  of  Matthew. 

Giving  Offense,  Luke  17:1,  2;  Matt.  18:6,  7. 
Here  we  find  the  conflation  on  the  part  of  Matthew, 
as  is  more  usual.  Matt.  18:6  follows  Mark  9:42, 
though  the  expression  cru/x^epet  aurw  tva  probably 
was  taken  from  Q;  for  Luke's  Xuo-treXet  aurc?  €t, 
which  has  essentially  the  same  meaning,  is  shown 
to  be  an  editorial  change  by  the  r)  tva  of  the  second 
member  of  the  adversative  clauses  in  Luke. 
Matt.  18:7  adds  the  thought  of  Q  which  was  not 
given  in  Mark.  The  first  clause  is  inserted  because 
of  the  new  position. 

Forgiveness,  Luke  17:3,  4;  Matt.  18:15,  21,  22, 
comes  in  both  Gospels  just  after  the  foregoing 
passage  on  giving  offense.  Literary  relationship 
here  is  wanting,  but  the  Hkeness  of  thought  is  such 
that  when  both  evangehsts  give  the  saying  in  the 
same  position  a  probability  arises  that  this  too 
belonged  in  Q.  Between  vss.  15  and  21  Matthew 
has  inserted  characteristic  material  on  the  theme 
of  Luke  17:3^,  which  may  account  in  part  for  the 
differences.  A  new  introduction  for  Luke  17:4 
was  thus  made  necessary.  Luke  is  himself  fond  of 
interrogations   from   the   disciples   to   emphasize 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  107 

a  teaching  of  Jesus,  and  it  is  therefore  less  probable 
that  he  would  have  omitted  the  question  of  Peter, 
Matt.  18:21,  if  it  stood  in  Q.  Harnack,  however, 
argues  for  the  priority  of  Matthew  because  his  text 
is  more  Semitic.  In  fact,  either  form  might  be 
original  here,  but  Luke  17:3  is  certainly  to  be 
preferred  to  Matt.  18:15. 

Faith, 'Luke  17:5,  6;  Matt.  17:205,  is  inserted 
by  Matthew  into  a  Markan  context.  There  is  some 
literary  likeness  here: 

Luke:     'Eav  t\ryr€  ttiVtiv  w?  kokkov  (rivaTrcws  eXcycrc 
Matt.:  *Eav  tXV^^  ttlcttlv  ws  kokkov  crtvaTrcws  ipcire 

The  Markan  context  of  Matthew  may  be  said 
to  favor  the  change  of  ''tree"  to  "mountain." 
The  possibility  that  this  stood  in  Q  is  to  be  allowed. 
If  so,  it  forms  an  interesting  parallel  to  Mark  1 1 :  23. 
Two  other  sayings  may  properly  be  considered 
here,  because  we  have  seen  that  they  cannot  be 
original  in  the  position  which  Luke  gives  them, 
6:39,  40.  The  very  fact  that  this  is  the  only  case 
where  we  have  found  reason  for  doubting  the  Lukan 
setting  of  a  common  saying  is  itself  striking. 
These  verses  have  their  parallel  in  Matt.  15:14; 
10:25.  Matt.  15:12-14  is  generally  recognized  as 
an  insertion  into  the  Markan  discourse  of  7 :  17-23. 


io8  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

If  therefore  neither  evangelist  has  preserved  the 
original  context,  the  conjecture  suggests  itself 
that  the  parable  stood  originally  in  this  miscella- 
neous group  of  short  sayings.  Matthew  and  Luke 
would  then  each  have  given  it  a  different  setting. 
But  if,  as  is  probable,  this  was  a  current  proverb, 
the  verbal  likeness  between  the  Gospels  can  be 
accounted  for  without  supposing  any  literary  con- 
nection. As  for  Luke  6:40;  Matt.  10:25,  more 
can  be  said  for  the  Matthean  position.  The  pas- 
sage is  there  in  every  way  appropriate,  the  con- 
nection with  what  follows  is  satisfactory.  Still,  if 
Luke  has  here  taken  this  saying  out  of  the  discourse 
in  which  it  stood  in  Q  and  has  transferred  it  to 
another,  it  is  the  only  example  of  such  transposition, 
not  only  in  this  common  material  but  in  Mark 
also.  On  the  other  hand,  such  changes  are  fre- 
quent in  Matthew  and  he  shows  the  highest  skill 
in  making  them.  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  a 
masterpiece  of  such  combination.  If  any  relation 
is  here  to  be  assumed,  this  saying  must  also  be 
added  to  the  miscellaneous  group  of  this  section. 
Luke  might  have  inserted  an  isolated  saying  into 
6:40,  but  he  would  not  have  removed  it  from  the 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  109 

situation  of  Matt.  10:25  to  insert  it  elsewhere. 
The  question  arises  again  whether  any  literary- 
connection  at  all  is  to  be  understood.^ 

Luke  22:28-30;  Matt.  19:28  have  also  been 
compared  and  assigned  to  Q,  but  no  common 
literary  source  is  here  likely,  unless  this  whole 
passage  of  Luke  be  assigned  to  Q.  Objections  to 
that  will  be  considered  later .^ 

SECTION  29.      THE  WHEN  AND  THE  WHERE  OF  THE 

SON   OF   man's   coming,    LUKE    17:20-37; 

MATT.    24:26-28,37-41 

The  presence  of  a  common  source  is  borne  wit- 
ness to  by  the  following  literary  resemblance: 

Luke:  koX  ipova-tv  vfuv,  iSov  ....  iBov  ,  .  .  .  ,  fJLTj 
aTTikOyfc.    fxrjSk   .... 

Matt.:  'Ecu/  ....  ctTTwo-iv  vfuv,  iSov  .  .  .  .  firj  c^cA- 
Or)T€,  ....   iSov  ....   fjit]  .... 

Luke:  Sxnrep  yap  17  dcTTpairr]  ....  €K  ,  ...  ciS 
....    OVTa>5    t(TTLV    6   vl6<s  TOV  dv6p(i)7rov. 

Matt.:  wcnrep  yap  y  da-rpaTrr)  ....  drro  ....  €a>s 
....   o{)To>9  tarrat   ....   tov  vlov  tov  dvBp<iiirov. 

^  It  is  interesting  that  another  parallel  to  Matt.  10: 15  is  found 
in  John  13:16. 

*  See  below,  pp.  157  f,  and  179. 


no  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

InMatt.  24:386,39^,40,  28;  Luke  17 127, 34, 35, 37 
the  verbal  likeness  is  self-evident. 

Matthew  is  probably  more  original  in  24:26. 
The  idea  of  the  Messiah  hidden  in  the  desert  or 
secret  chambers  would  be  intelligible  to  a  Jew 
but  meaningless  to  gentile  readers.  Moreover,  the 
Lukan  form  is  found  just  before  this  in  17:21  and 
in  Mark  13:21  also.  So  also  in  24:27  Matthew's 
form  is  more  concrete,  but  whether  17  irapovaia  is 
original  is  more  doubtful.  Matthew  alone  of  the 
evangelists  uses  the  word.  It  is  found  for  the  first 
time  in  his  introduction  to  this  discourse,  24:3. 
In  24 :  40  Matthew  is  again  more  true  to  the  original 
in  retaining  aypco  for  k\Ip7]s,  the  men  in  the  field 
are  compared  to  the  women  at  the  mill.  Luke  has 
sacrificed  the  parallelism  in  order  to  introduce 
the  night  as  well  as  the  day  and  possibly  also  to 
emphasize  the  closeness  of  those  who  are  separated. 

A  more  important  question  is  whether  we  have 
sufficient  grounds  for  including  in  the  discourse 
anything  which  Luke  alone  gives.  There  is 
certainly  an  antecedent  probability  that  Matthew, 
in  combining  this  discourse  with  Mark,  chap.  13, 
might  omit  some  things  which  seemed  to  him  imma- 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  iii 

terial.  We  should  expect  him  to  leave  out  the 
parallel  reference  to  the  days  of  Lot,  which  adds 
nothing  to  the  thought  but  which  is  appropriate 
in  Q,  whose  characteristic  it  is  to  present  such 
parallel  illustrations.  On  the  other  hand,  17:31, 
32  reads  very  much  as  if  it  were  a  further  reflection 
on  the  reference  to  Lot,  influenced  possibly  by 
Mark  13:15  fT.^  Luke  17:33  certainly  seems  to 
be  an  addition  here.  Wendt  argues  that  this  is  the 
misplaced  Q  parallel  to  Mark  8:35  and  that  it  is 
found  in  its  true  position  in  Matt.  10:39;  but  this 
rests  upon  the  assumption  that,  because  it  occurs 
twice  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  it  must  have  stood 
both  in  Mark  and  Q.  This  is  untenable.^  Luke 
17 :  25,  as  Wellhausen  has  shown, ^  is  very  appropri- 
ate in  this  context,  and  7€^eas  Tavr-qs  reminds  us 
strongly  of  the  section  on  a  demand  for  signs,  and 
the  conclusion  to  the  woes  on  the  Pharisees  and 
scribes.  Matt.  12:38  ff.;  chap.  23  (cf.  also  11:16). 
In  regard  to  17:20,  21  we  can  hope  for  nothing 

'  Wellhausen  reverses,  making  17:31-33  original  and  17: 28-30 
an  insertion. 

^  Other  reasons  for  regarding  this  verse  as  secondary  are  given 
on  p.  203. 

3  See  Kom.  Luk.,  in  loc. 


112  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

conclusive.  The  saying  is  independent  of  what 
follows,  apart  from  the  difference  of  address,  which 
may  be  merely  editorial.  However,  it  is  not 
unusual  for  Q  to  put  independent  sayings  side 
by  side  merely  because  they  concern  the  same 
general  theme.  Nor  is  the  omission  by  Matthew 
significant.  The  saying  was  not  so  important  to 
him  as  it  is  to  us  today.  There  is  no  sufficient 
reason  for  denying  that  this  stood  in  Q,  but  we  can- 
not positively  affirm  that  it  did.  The  thought  of 
the  saying  is  not  unlike  that  of  the  parables  of  the 
Mustard  Seed  and  the  Leaven,  Sec.  24.  The  pro- 
verbial saying  of  Matt.  24:28;  Luke  17:37  has  its 
true  position  in  Matthew,  not  Luke.  The  ques- 
tion with  which  Luke  introduces  it  is  suspicious. 
The  *' Where,  Lord,"  has  been  answered  in  17 :  23,  24 
and  is  inserted  here  to  bring  the  reader  back  to 
the  same  situation.  To  Matthew  the  saying  meant 
either  that,  as  certainly  as  the  vultures  gather  about 
the  dead  body,  the  disciples  will  find  the  Messiah 
without  signs  or  seeking;^  or,  better,  that  the  place 
will  reveal  itself  as  the  vultures  betray  where  the 
corpse  is — when  the  time  comes  they  will  know.^ 

"^  So  Jiilicher.  '  So  Wellhausen. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  113 

Luke  has  removed  the  saying  from  its  context 
and  given  it  an  emphatic  position  at  the  end. 
Can  it  be  because  he  found  some  allegorical  refer- 
ence to  the  eagles  in  the  Roman  standard  ? 

SECTION   30.      THE   DUTY   OF   THE   DISCIPLES   UNTIL 

THE   SON   OF   MAN   COMES,    LUKE    19:11-28; 

MATT.    25:14-30 

This  parable  has  taken  very  different  forms 
in  the  two  Gospels,  but  the  evidence  for  a  common 
source  is  only  made  the  more  striking  thereby, 
because  common  features  in  thought  and  language 
are  retained  where  they  are  no  longer  appropriate. 
As  JuUcher  has  shown, 

Luke:      Apare  cItt'  avrov  rrjv  fxvav  kol  Sore  tw  Ta<;  SiKa 
Matt.:    Apare  ovv  citt'  avrov  to  rdXavTov  kol  86t€  T(o 

Luke:    /xvas  tx^vn 

Matt.:  €\ovTL  Tot  SeKtt  rdXavTa 

is  quite  out  of  place  after  Luke  19:17,  *'Wie 
kindlich  ware  der  Hinweis  auf  seinen  Besitz  von 
750  Mark  wenn  er  Verwalter  einer  Provinz  ge- 
worden  war."^  In  like  manner  the  mention  of 
just  three  servants  in  Luke  19:15  ff.  after  ten  are 

*  Julicher,  Die  Gleichnisreden  Jesu,  p.  493. 


114  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

introduced  in  19:13  reveals  the  influence  of  the 
common  source.  Any  synopticon  makes  it  clear 
that  we  have  to  do  with  material  having  a  liter- 
ary relationship  in  Matt.  25:24-29;  Luke  19:21- 
24,  26. 

It  is  evident  also  that  Matthew  has  adhered 
more  closely  to  his  source  than  has  Luke.  The 
only  verse  of  Matthew  which  we  can  be  sure  is  an 
editorial  insertion  is  vs.  30;  but  vss.  16-18  are 
superfluous  and  may  also  have  been  added.  The 
expression  *' enter  thou  into  the  joy  of  thy  Lord" 
is  most  naturally  interpreted  as  a  reference  to  the 
future  messianic  hope,  but,  inasmuch  as  both 
evangelists  recognize  this  element,  there  is  no 
reason  for  denying  that  it  stood  in  Q.  However, 
as  Jiilicher  says,  it  was  only  incidental  there. ^ 

Luke  has  converted  the  householder  into  an 
aspirant  for  the  throne.  The  experience  of  differ- 
ent members  of  the  Herodian  family  undoubtedly 
suggested  this  application.  Luke  intended  thereby 
to  set  forth  the  future  coming  of  Christ,  emphasiz- 
ing the  delay  which  will  intervene.  Verses  11,  12^, 
14,  15  {\aP6vTa  T7]v  ^aaCkdav),  17,  19  (the  ten  and 

«0/>.  aV.,  p.  481. 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  115 

the  five  cities),  27,  28  are  therefore  to  be  regarded 
as  editorial.  There  is  hardly  sufficient  reason  for 
saying  that  Luke  has  here  conflated  two  parables 
and  for  identifying  the  king  here  with  the  king  in 
Matthew's  parable  of  the  Wedding  Feast,  Matt. 
22:11  ff.'  As  soon  as  any  attempt  was  made  to 
allegorize  the  parables  of  Jesus,  nothing  was  more 
natural  than  to  introduce  king  and  kingdom. 
Luke's  account  is,  however,  to  be  preferred  in  its 
use  oi^iva  iorrhXavTov.  Whether  in  the  source  the 
money  was  distributed  equally,  or,  as  Matthew 
says,  "according  to  the  ability  of  each, "  can  hardly 
be  decided.  Both  Jiilicher  and  Harnack  prefer  the 
Matthean  form  for  different  reasons.  Luke  19:25 
is  one  of  those  interrogations  whose  insertion  is 
characteristic  of  Luke.    It  is  surely  secondary  here. 

SUMMARY 

We  have  now  completed  the  list  of  passages  in 
which  we  have  sufficient  evidence  of  a  written 
Greek  source  underlying  both  Matthew  and  Luke, 
allowing  of  course  the  probability  that  either 
evangelist  may  preserve  some  things  omitted  by 

'  So  Hamack,  p.  125. 


ii6  Matthew* s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

the  other.  In  regard  to  the  parable  of  the  Great 
Feast,  Matt.  22:2-11;  Luke  14:16-24,  which 
critics  used  to  assign  to  this  source,  the  relation 
there  between  the  two  Gospels  is  not  such  as  would 
indicate  a  common  written  source.  All  literary 
resemblance  has  disappeared.  The  similarity  is 
just  such  as  we  should  expect  to  arise  from  a  com- 
mon oral  tradition.  While  of  course  it  cannot  be 
categorically  denied  that  this  incident  stood  in 
Q,  we  may  still  venture  to  assert  that  it  probably 
did  not. 

The  following  table  will  summarize  the  results 
of  the  preceding  discussion: 

Section 

1.  Preaching  of  John  the  Baptist 

Luke  3 : 7-9, 16&-1 7  Matt.  3:7-12 

2.  Temptation  of  Jesus 

Luke  4 : 1-13  Matt.  4 :  i-i  la 

3.  Discourse  on  Love,  the  Principle  of  Conduct 

Luke  6:20-23,  27-33,  Matt.  5:3,  4,  6,  11,  12, 

35-38,  41-49  39,40;  5:44-48;  7:1-5, 

12,  18,  19,  22,  24-27 

4.  Commendation  of  a  Centurion's  Faith 

Luke  7:1-10  Matt.  7:28a;  8:5-10,  13 

5.  Discourse  on  John  the  Baptist 

Luke  7: 18, 19, 22-28,31-35    Matt.  11:2-11,  16-19 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  117 

Section 

6.  Following  Jesus 

Luke  9: 57-60  (61,  62)  Matt.  8:19-22 

7.  Commission  to  the  Disciples  (Matthew  has  here  com- 

bined Mark  and  Q) 
Luke  10:1-12  Matt.  9:37,  38;  10:5-16 

8.  Woes  on  the  Cities  Which  Fail  to  Respond 

Luke  10:13-16  Matt.  11:21-24 

(9.  Return  of  the  Disciples 
Luke  10:17-20) 

10.  Jesus'  Self-Revelation  to  His  Disciples 

Luke  10:21-22  Matt.  11:25-27 

11.  Prophets'  Desire  for  What  the  Disciples  Have  Seen 

Luke  10:23-24  Matt.  13:16,  17 

12.  Prayer,  Promise  to  the  Disciples  of  Divine  Help 

Luke  11:1-4  (5-9) ,  9-13       Matt.  6 : 9-13 ;  7:7-11 

13.  Calumny  of  the  Pharisees  (Matthew  has  here  com- 

bined Mark  and  Q) 
Luke  11:14-23  Matt.  9:336;  12:22-30 

14.  Seven  Other  Spirits 

Luke  11:24-26  Matt.  12:43-45 

15.  Demand  for  a  Sign  from  Heaven 

Luke  11:29-32,  34a,  Matt.  12:38,  39,  41,  42 

35,36 

16.  Woes  on  the  Pharisees,  the  Scribes,  and  This  Genera- 

tion (Matthew  has  here  combined  Mark  and  Q) 
Luke  11:39-44,  46-54  Matt.  23:4,  6,  13,  15,  23, 

25,27-32,34-36 


ii8  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

Section 

17.  Warnings  of  Danger  with  Assurances  of  God's  Care 

Luke  12:16-12  Matt.  10:  (24,  25)  26-33 

18.  Instructions  to  Seek  the  Kingdom 

Luke  12:22-24  Matt.  6:19-21,  25-34 

19.  Parables  Teaching  Need  of  Watchfuhiess 

Luke  12: (35-38)  39-46         Matt.  24:42-51 

20.  Warning  of  a  Period  of  Strife  and  Disaster 

Luke  12: (49,  50)  51-53        Matt.  10:34-36 

21.  Signs  of  the  Times  and  the  Need  of  Repentance 

Luke  12:54-56  Matt.  (16:26,  3) 

22.  The  Approaching  Judgment 

Luke  12:57-59  Matt.  5:25,  26 

(23.  Call  to  Repentance 
Luke  13:1-9) 

24.  Parables  on  the  Kingdom 

Luke  13:18-21  Matt.  13:31-33 

25.  Discourse  on  Those  Who  Are  to  Enter  the  Kingdom 

Luke  13:23-29  Matt.  7:13,  14,  21-23; 

8:11,  12 

26.  Lament  over  Forsaken  Jerusalem 

Luke  13:34,  35  Matt.  23:37-39 

27.  Fearful  Cost  of  Discipleship 

Luke  14:25-27  (28-35)  Matt  10:37,  38 

28.  Miscellaneous  Sayings: 

Lost  Sheep 
Luke  15:4-7  (8-10)  Matt.  18:10-14 

God  and  Mammon 
Luke  16:13  Matt.  6:24 


Study  of  the  Common  Material  119 

Section 

Storming  the  Kingdom 
Luke  16:16  Matt.  11:12,  13 

Validity  of  the  Law 
Luke  16:17  Matt.  5:18 

Adultery 
Luke  16:18  Matt.  5:32 

Giving  Offense  (Matthew  has  combined  Mark  and  Q) 
Luke  17:1,  2  Matt.  18:6,  7 

Forgiveness 
Luke  17:3,  4  Matt.  18:15,  21 

Faith 

Luke  17:5,  6  Matt.  17:20 


(Luke  17:7-10  Matt.  5:14;  7:6;  13:44- 

46;  18:10) 

29.  When  and  Where  of  the  Son  of  Man's  Coming 

Luke  17:  (21,  20)  22-30,       Matt.  24:26-28,  37-41 
34-37 

30.  Duty  of  the  Disciples  until  the  Son  of  Man  Comes 

(Luke  has  here  recast  the  narrative) 
Luke  19:11-27  Matt.  25:14, 15, 19-29 

The  evidence  seems  sufficient  to  show  that  in 
each  of  these  sections  Matthew  and  Luke  are 
using  a  common  source  or  sources  written  in  Greek. 
Some  passages  found  only  in  one  Gospel  are  here 
added  in  parentheses  for  the  sake  of  completeness. 
They  will  be  discussed  later. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  SEQUENCE  OF  PARALLEL  SECTIONS  IN 
MATTHEW  AND  LUKE 

Merely  to  have  shown  the  evidence  of  a  common 
source  in  these  various  sections,  which  are  neces- 
sarily separated  on  a  somewhat  arbitrary  basis,  is 
not  sufficient.  If  the  contention  is  really  to  be 
maintained  that  behind  this  material  is  a  single 
common  source,  as  behind  the  Markan  material 
stands  the  source  Mark,  the  disposal  which  each 
evangelist  has  made  of  these  sections  must  be 
satisfactorily  explained. 

First,  however,  attention  should  be  directed  to 
the  number  of  sections  which  stand  in  the  same 
sequence  in  both  Gospels: 

Section 

1.  Preaching  of  John  the  Baptist 

Luke    3:7-17  Matt.    3:7-12 

2.  Temptation  of  Jesus 

Luke    4:1-13  Matt.    4:1-11 

3.  Discourse  on  Love 

Luke    6:20-49  Matt.  5,  7  (in  part) 

4.  Centurion's  Act  of  Faith 

Luke    7:1-10  Matt.    8:5-13 

120 


Sequence  of  Parallel  Sections  121 

Section 

6.  Following  Jesus 

Luke    9:57-62  Matt.    8:19-22 

7.  Commission  to  the  Disciples 

Luke  10:1-12  Matt.    9:37 — 10:16 

8.  Woes  on  Galilean  Cities 

Luke  10 :  13-16  Matt.  1 1 :  20-24 

10.  Jesus'  Self-Revelation 

Luke  10:21,  22  Matt.  11:25-27 

13.  Calumny  of  the  Pharisees 

Luke  11:14-23  Matt.  12:22-32 

15.  Demand  for  a  Sign  from  Heaven 

Luke  11:29-36  Matt.  12:38-42 

16.  Woes  on  Pharisees,  etc. 

Luke  11:37-54  Matt.  23  (in  part) 

26.  Lament  over  Jerusalem 

Luke  13:34,  35  Matt.  23:37-39 

29.  When  and  Where  of  Son  of  Man's  Coming 

Luke  17:20-37  Matt.  24:26-28,  37:41 

30.  Disciples'  Duty  until  Future  Coming 

Luke  19:11-28  Matt.  25:14-30 

Two  sections  of  the  thirty,  Sees.  9  and  23,  are  of 
course  to  be  omitted  from  consideration,  because 
they  are  found  only  in  Luke.  This  means  that 
in  fourteen  out  of  the  twenty-eight  sections,  com- 
mon to  both  Gospels,  there  is  not  only  a  likeness  of 
thought  and  language,  but  the  sections  themselves 


122  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

stand  in  the  same  relative  position.  Again,  a 
trace  of  the  Lukan  order  sometimes  remains  in 
Matthew's  composite  discourses.  A  striking  con- 
firmation of  our  theory  is  found  in  Matt.,  chap.  lo, 
for  there,  evidently,  Matthew  has  gathered  together 
instructions  to  the  disciples  which  are  scattered  in 
Luke  through  various  sections;  but  Matthew  in 
'Combining  them  has  retained  all  these  sayings  in 
their  original  sequence : 

Sec.    7  Matt.    9:37 — 10: i6=Luke  10:1-12 
17  10:26-33        =  12:2-9 

20  10:34-36        =  12:51-53 

27  10-37,38        =  14:25-27 

How  significant  this  is  of  that  evangelist's  method 
of  compilation!  Sec.  25  is  also  instructive  from 
this  standpoint.  Luke  13:23,  24  =  Matt.  7:13; 
Luke  13:26,  27  =  Matt.  7:226,  23;  Luke  13: 
28,  29  =  Matt.  8:11,  12.  The  same  sequence  ap- 
pears in  both  Gospels.  Such  resemblances  as 
these  are  not  accidental;  they  are  a  strong  con- 
firmation of  the  whole  theory  of  a  common 
source  Q. 

But  there  are  differences  for  which  we  must 
account.    If  this  material  comes  from  Q  either 


Sequence  oj  Parallel  Sections  123 

Matthew  or  Luke  has  transposed  parts  of  it.  If 
again  we  call  to  mind  the  results  of  our  observation 
in  Markan  material,  the  strong  presumption  is 
created  that  such  changes  are  for  the  most  part  due 
to  Matthew.  This  is  sufficient  justification  for 
using  the  sequence  of  Luke  as  the  basis  for  further 
study. 

For  differences  of  sequence  within  the  various 
sections  we  need  only  refer  to  the  detailed  dis- 
cussions which  have  preceded.  But,  reviewing  to 
get  the  data  all  before  us,  we  found  that  in  Sec.  2 
Luke  had  changed  the  order  of  one  temptation; 
in  Sec.  3  slight  changes  were  made  by  Matthew; 
in  Sec.  7  the  position  of  Luke  10:3  had  been 
changed  by  Luke,  but  Matthew,  compiling  Mark 
and  Q,  had  removed  10:7=  Luke  10 :  96  and  10 :  loh 
=  Luke  10:76;  in  Sec.  15  Luke  had  inverted  the 
order  of  11:31  and  11:32;  in  Sec.  16  the  original 
sequence  could  not  be  determined  with  any  cer- 
tainty. Inasmuch  as  Matthew  evidently  con- 
flated here,  most  of  the  changes  were  attributed 
to  him,  but  the  probability  has  been  suggested  that 
Luke  inverted  the  last  two  woes.  In  Sec.  18 
Matthew  has  changed  the  position  of  6:19-21; 


124  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

in  Sec.  25  he  has  inverted  8:11  and  8:12;  but  in 
Sec.  29  the  Matthean  position  of  24:28  is  to  be 
preferred  to  that  of  Luke.  Sec.  28  cannot  be 
considered  here,  for  it  is  not  a  unit.  Reference 
ought,  however,  to  be  made  to  Luke  12 :  10  and  12 : 
II,  12.  Matthew's  position  for  these  sayings  is,  as 
we  have  seen,  determined  by  his  preference  for 
Mark.  Changes  within  the  various  sections  were 
made  by  both  evangehsts  for  editorial  reasons,  and 
when  we  consider  the  nature  of  the  material  they 
are  surprisingly  few.  They  total  only  twenty-one 
verses  in  material  amounting  to  over  two  hundred 
verses. 

Let  us  turn  now  to  those  differences  which  more 
immediately  concern  us  here.  Where  Matthew 
and  Luke  do  not  put  common  material  in  the  same 
general  context  can  we  depend  upon  the  order  of 
Luke,  or  must  we  here  also  allow  for  changes  made 
by  both  evangehsts  ?  Does  Luke  divide  discourses 
into  fragments  or  does  Matthew  combine  short 
sayings  and  groups  of  sayings  into  longer  dis- 
courses ?  We  know  that  the  latter  is  true,  but  it 
remains  to  be  shown  whether  this  is  always  the 
case. 


Sequence  of  Parallel  Sections  125 

Wernle^  refers  to  the  saying  of  Luke  13 :  28,  29, 
which  he  says  Luke  has  separated  from  its  context 
in  Sec.  4  and  put  later  because  he  regarded  the 
words  as  too  sharp  against  Israel  for  this  early 
period.  Wernle  must  have  forgotten  the  rejection 
at  Nazareth,  which  Luke  placed  at  the  very  begin- 
ning of  the  Galilean  ministry.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  position  which  Matthew  gave  this  saying  is 
readily  understood  if  he  had  Sec.  25  before  him  as 
it  stood  in  Luke.' 

Sec.  8,  Woes  on  Galilean  cities ^  seems  to  be 
differently  placed  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  but  it  is 
really  in  the  same  relative  position  in  both  Gospels; 
the  only  difference  is  that  Matthew  has  omitted  the 
return  of  the  disciples  which  follows  it  in  Luke 
and  inserted  Sec.  5,  the  Discourse  on  John  the 
Baptist,  before  it.  That  Matthew  himself  read 
Sec.  8  immediately  after  Sec.  7  is  confirmed  by  the 
repetition  of  the  Lukan  introductory  sentence, 
Matt.  11:24  =  Luke  10:12.  Examining  this  differ- 
ence from  the  standpoint  of  Sec.  5,  we  come  to  the 
same  conclusion.  Matthew  felt  constrained  to 
give  this  section  a  later  context,  not  only  because 

I  Die  synoptische  Frage,  p.  89.         '  See  above,  pp.  96  ff. 


126  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

it  did  not  properly  belong  to  his  miracle  chapters  8 
and  9,  but  because  the  reference  to  the  wonderful 
works  of  Jesus  demanded  a  later  position  in  a 
Gospel  which  pretended  to  give  a  record  of  such 
works.  This  argument  is  supported  by  the  fact 
that  Luke  felt  the  same  difficulty,  but,  instead  of 
changing  the  position  of  the  section,  he  prefaced 
the  raising  of  the  widow's  son  and  added  a  notice 
of  Jesus'  other  wonderful  works  editorially.  It 
is  true  that  this  discourse  might  still  have  come 
before  chap.  lo  in  Matthew  as  well  as  after  it. 
The  reason  why  Matthew  put  it  just  where  he  did 
may  be  because  of  the  connection  he  found  between 
11:19  and  the  woes  on  the  Galilean  cities.  That 
wisdom  is  justified  of  her  works  will  be  revealed  in 
the  woes  awaiting  the  cities  in  which  these  works 
were  done. 

Sec.  II  in  Luke  is  an  epilogue  to  Christ's  self- 
revelation,  10:21,  22;  in  Matthew  it  is  included  in 
the  chapter  on  parables.  Luke's  omission  of  it 
there  is  supported  by  Mark.  It  seems  to  take  the 
place  of  Mark  4: 13,  praising  them  instead  of  blam- 
ing them.  The  context  given  this  saying  in  Luke 
is  surely  as  appropriate  as  the  one  in  Matthew, 


Sequence  of  Parallel  Sections  127 

and  the  probability  arises  that  Matthew,  because  of 
his  insertion  of  that  beautiful  saying  of  Jesus, 
"Take  my  yoke  upon  you,"  omitted  the  original 
conclusion  here  and  added  it  at  the  next  suitable 
place.  One  can  hardly  believe  that  Luke  would 
have  omitted  Matt.  11:28-30  if  he  had  read  it 
here. 

Sec.  12,  nearly  all  critics  agree,  was  not  originally 
a  part  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Matthew 
must  have  found  it  somewhere  else  and  combined 
it  with  that  discourse.  No  reasonable  objection 
appears  why  he  may  not  have  found  it  in  the  posi- 
tion which  it  has  in  Luke.  Luke  has  retained  it 
in  its  original  context;  Matthew  has  woven  it  into 
his  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

Sec.  14  Matthew  has  placed  after  Sec.  15; 
Luke,  before.  Matthew  has  sought  to  justify  his 
sequence  by  the  editorial  addition  of  12:456. 
Jiilicher,^  seeking  for  an  interpretation  of  this 
parable,  finds  it  in  its  connection  with  Luke  11 :  23. 
But  even  if  his  interpretation  be  not  accepted, 
the  position  of  the  parable  for  which  he  argues  is 
certainly  original.    He  makes  it  clear  that  Matthew 

» Op.  cit.,  p.  238. 


128  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

is  here  secondary.  Moreover,  it  is  to  be  noticed 
that  just  where  this  parable  appears  in  Luke, 
Matthew  inserted  the  sayings  from  Mark  about 
the  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  also  the  parable 
of  the  Tree  and  Its  Fruit.  This  may  in  part,  at 
least,  account  for  his  postponing  this  parable  of  the 
Seven  Other  Spirits.  That  he  has  not  found  a 
more  appropriate  place  is  only  because  he  did  not 
himself  understand  it.  Our  reasons  for  considering 
that  Matt.  12:33-37  is  not  original  here  have 
already  been  given.^  In  Sec.  15  the  two  verses 
of  Luke  11:34-36,  which  Matthew  included  in 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  have  already  been 
discussed.  As  we  have  seen,  it  is  doubtful  whether 
Matthew  in  6 :  22,  23  is  following  Q  at  all.  If  he  is, 
the  Lukan  context  is  still  the  more  probable.^ 

Sees.  17,  20,  27  are  combined  by  the  first  evan- 
gelist with  the  other  instructions  to  the  disciples  in 
chap.  10;  and  the  discourse  on  the  relation  of  the 
kingdom  to  the  world.  Sec.  18,  belongs  properly 
in  the  great  discourse  of  chaps.  5-7,  as  Matthew 
has  conceived  it.  In  all  of  these  sections 
Matthew's  position  can  be  explained  on  the  basis 

*  See  above,  pp.  61  f.  '  See  p.  66. 


Sequence  of  Parallel  Sections  129 

of  Luke's,  but  the  context  they  have  in  Luke  can- 
not be  understood  on  the  basis  of  the  Matthean 
context. 

Sees.  19  and  29  are  combined  by  Matthew  with 
the  corresponding  material  of  Mark.  In  Luke  they 
are  independent  of  Mark  and  in  all  probability 
preserved  in  their  original  sequence.  Wernle 
argues  that  the  separation  of  Sec.  19  and  Sec.  29 
shows  Luke's  tendency  to  scatter  sayings  of  Q. 
But  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  context  of  Luke  17 : 
20  if.  to  indicate  that  Luke  has  purposely  separated 
this  from  12:35  ff.;  ^^d,  as  we  shall  try  to  show, 
there  is  a  strong  probability  that  in  Q  between 
these  two  sections  there  stood  only  material  similar 
in  tone.  At  any  rate,  Matthew,  who  is  simply 
inserting  this  material  into  appropriate  contexts 
of  Mark,  gives  us  no  reason  for  believing  that  he 
found  a  differently  arranged  text  in  Q  from  that 
of  Luke. 

Sees.  21,  22  have  already  been  fully  considered.^ 
There  can  be  no  choice  between  the  positions  given 
them  by  Matthew  and  Luke.  If  Sec.  21  stood 
in  Matthew  it  was  conflated  with  Mark.     Sec.  22 

*  See  pp.  90  ff . 


130  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

Matthew  has  woven  into  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  where  its  eschatological  tone  is  out  of 
place.  Sec.  24  Matthew  has  simply  inserted  into 
a  Markan  context  from  which  it  is  kept  independent 
by  Luke.  Sec.  25  has  already  been  sufficiently 
explained.^  No  one  who  grants  that  Matthew 
and  Luke  found  this  section  in  Q  will  question  the 
priority  of  its  position  in  Luke.  The  insertion 
of  portions  of  it  into  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is 
surely  secondary. 

Sec.  26  is  made  by  Matthew  a  part  of  his  con- 
clusion of  the  woes  upon  the  scribes  and  Pharisees. 
Everyone  recognizes  that  it  is  thoroughly  in  the 
spirit  of  Jesus  thus  to  close  the  denunciation,  but 
the  critic  must  also  recognize  that  the  appropriate- 
ness of  this  depends  upon  the  situation  in  which 
Matthew  placed  these  woes.  This  situation,  how- 
ever, comes  from  Mark  and  not  from  Q.  His- 
torically also  it  is  improbable  that  these  woes 
should  have  been  spoken  in  Jerusalem  at  the  close 
of  Jesus'  ministry  when  his  foes  were  the  priestly 
authorities  more  than  the  Pharisees.  It  is  in  the 
Galilean  ministry  that  the  Pharisees  are  empha- 

*  See  pp.  96  ff . 


Sequence  of  Parallel  Sections  131 

sized.  The  evidence  that  Matt.  23:34-36  is  a 
widsom  quotation  and  not  a  direct  word  of  Jesus, 
and  therefore  this  saying  could  not  propefly  follow 
it,  is,  as  Harnack  shows  (p.  169),  inconclusive. 
Still,  it  adds  to  the  improbabiHty  of  the  Matthean 
connection.  Matthew  is  no  doubt  correct  in 
putting  this  saying  during  Jesus'  sojourn  in  Jerusa- 
lem. Luke's  independent  saying,  19:41,  gives 
us  something  similar  for  that  period  and  the  saying 
is  surely  more  appropriate  in  Jerusalem  than  else- 
where. We  have  here  the  same  phenomenon 
that  has  been  shown  before.  Matthew  has  trans- 
posed a  saying  to  a  suitable  Markan  context; 
Luke  has  left  it  where  it  was,  but  used  independent 
material  as  an  appropriate  historical  introduction. 
The  author  of  Q  thought  only  of  the  teaching  and 
the  topical  connection  between  Sec.  25  and  Sec.  26.^ 
There  remains  only  Sec.  28,  that  group  of  frag- 
mentary sayings  which  we  find  almost  isolated 
in  Luke.  This  has  always  been  one  of  the  great 
puzzles  of  that  Gospel,  but  surely  the  critic  who 

*  Geographical  references  are  not  given  by  Q,  but  if,  as  we  shall 
try  to  show,  Sec,  23  belongs  to  that  source,  we  have  before  this  a 
saying  where  a  Jerusalem  background  is  implied.  See  further, 
p.  170. 


132  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

suggests  that  Luke  removed  these  verses  from 
the  plausible  contexts  which  they  have  in  Mat- 
thew only  adds  to  the  difficulty.  We  must  try 
to  explain  them  on  the  basis  of  Luke.  Matthew's 
disposal  of  them  is  then  readily  understood.  He 
has  only  done  here  what  we  find  he  had  done 
everywhere  else. 

What  is  the  result  of  this  examination?  Does 
it  not  fully  confirm  what  we  have  learned  of  Luke's 
habits  in  investigating  Markan  material?  He 
adheres  closely  to  the  order  of  topics  in  his  source. 
In  no  case  have  we  found  evidence  that  the  position 
he  gave  a  section  was  secondary  to  that  in  Matthew 
unless  the  proverbial  saying  of  6:40  be  such  an 
exception.^  If  so,  it  ought  to  be  regarded  only  as 
the  exception  which  proves  the  rule.  Proof  that 
the  order  of  Luke  is  throughout  that  of  the  source 
has  not  been  given,  but  his  priority  to  Matthew  has 
been  made  clear,  and  this  establishes  a  presumption 
in  favor  of  the  Lukan  sequence.  It  has  long  been 
recognized  that  in  the  study  of  Matthew's  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  Luke  should  be  made  the  basis.  It 
is  time  to  appreciate  also  that  in  the  whole  question 

^  See  above,  p.  107. 


Sequence  of  Parallel  Sections  133 

of  their  second  common  source  Luke  and  not 
Matthew  is  the  key.^  Matthew  is  of  special  value 
in  determining  the  text  and  details,  but  of  only 
secondary  importance  in  our  search  for  broader 
outlines.  Even  in  details  Luke  has  shown  unusual 
care  in  this  source,  and  Matthew's  priority  cannot 
be  so  frequently  assumed  as  Harnack  would  make 
us  believe.  But  Harnack,  who  in  every  case 
where  he  has  any  doubt  gives  the  preference  to  the 
text  of  Matthew,  himself  says,  ^'Tendenzen  haben 
also  bei  Lukas  nicht  starker  gewirkt  als  bei  Mat- 
thaus,  ja  sogar  etwas  schwacher."^ 

That  Luke  in  his  two  great  interpolations, 
chaps.  6  ff.  and  9:51  ff.,  has  inserted  Q  practically 
in  the  order  which  he  found  it,  has  been  shown 
to  be  a  good  working  hypothesis.  Historical  sit- 
uations are  created  usually  by  the  insertion  of 
foreign  material,  sometimes  by  simple  editorial 
notes ;  the  greater  part  of  the  whole  source  is  fitted 
into  the  scheme  of  a  last  journey  to  Jerusalem, 

*  H.  von  Soden,  J,  H.  Moulton,  and  F,  C.  Burkitt  are  among 
those  who  have  recognized  this.  I  regret  that  I  have  not  had 
access  to  the  book  of  Dr.  Armitage  Robinson,  quoted  by  F.  C. 
Burkitt,  The  Gospel  History  and  Transmission,  p.  131. 

2  See  p.  79.    The  English  translation,  p.  115,  is  obscure. 


134  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

9:51,53;  10:1;  13:22^;  17:11,  but  the  material 
itself  refuses  to  conform  to  such  an  itinerary.  The 
topical  sequence  of  sayings  is  also  broken  by  inci- 
dents in  Luke  which  are  not  found  in  Matthew. 
When  we  study  the  relation  of  Q  to  the  independent 
material  of  Luke,  we  shall  find  these  principles  of 
method  abundantly  illustrated.  The  significant 
thing  to  us  at  present  is  that  this  method  did  not 
involve  any  serious  changes  in  sequence,  so  that 
behind  his  historical  notes  the  original  plan  of  ar- 
rangement can  still  be  discerned.  It  is  for  this  that 
the  modern  scholar  should  be  profoundly  grateful. 
From  the  standpoint  of  practical  usefulness  the 
method  of  Matthew  is  much  to  be  preferred. 

How  now  has  Matthew  treated  his  source? 
Instead  of  trying  to  conjecture  a  context  for  a 
group  of  sayings  without  any  introduction,  he 
always  did  one  of  two  things — he  either  fitted  them 
into  some  context  supplied  by  Mark,  Sees,  i,  2, 
3,  6,^  7,  II,  13,  16,  19,  2i(?),  24,  28  (17:20;  18:6, 
7),  29;    or  grouped  them  into  a  larger  discourse, 

*  That  Sec.  6  should  come  before  the  sending  out  of  the  dis- 
ciples is  simply  due  to  its  position  in  Q,  but  that  it  should  come 
just  where  it  does  in  8: 19  is  probably  because  in  Jesus'  crossing 
the  sea  to  the  other  side  Matthew  found  the  appropriate  situation 


Sequence  of  Parallel  Sections  135 

Sees.  12,  17,  18,  20,  22,  25,  26,  27,  28.  The  other 
sections,  4,  8,  10,  15,  30,  have  simply  been  left 
where  they  were  in  the  source.  Sees.  5  and  14 
have  had  their  positions  slightly  changed,  for 
reasons  already  given.  It  is  also  to  be  noticed  that 
in  carrying  out  this  plan  the  original  sequence  was 
retained  as  much  as  possible.  In  combining  with 
Mark,  he  very  often  preserved  the  order  of  Q, 
and  we  have  already  shown  how  he  did  this  in  the 
discourse  of  chap.  10.  Considering  the  nature  of 
this  material,  Matthew's  method  is  more  natural 
and  appropriate  than  that  of  Luke,  and  to  anyone 
but  the  modern  historian  more  satisfactory.  The 
plan  is  carried  out  with  great  skill.  Wherever 
Matthew  fully  understood  a  passage,  the  context 
which  he  gave  it  was  suitable.  This  is  only  to  be 
expected,  for  the  men  who  wrote  the  Gospels  were 
all  men  of  ability,  not  bunglers.  We  should  also 
remember  that  this  hypothesis,  by  which  we  would 
explain  the  variations  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in 
Q,  is  in  full  accord  with  what  we  should  expect  these 

for  the  offer  of  the  scribe  to  go  with  Jesus  wherever  he  went. 
Luke,  however,  finds  the  appropriate  situation  in  Jesus'  journey 
through  Samaria  to  Jerusalem,  9:51.  Both  evangelists  connect 
it  with  going  upon  heathen  soil. 


136  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

evangelists  to  do  after  examining  their  treatment  of 
Mark.  The  same  principles  apply  in  both  cases, 
though  the  nature  of  the  material  justified  Matthew 
in  carrying  the  principle  of  regrouping  much 
further  in  Q  than  he  did  in  Mark.  Indeed,  he  has 
made  Mark  the  basis  for  rearranging  Q. 

Only  a  few  years  ago  Harnack's  treatise 
appeared,  and  demands  fuller  consideration  from 
us  as  the  latest  attempt  by  a  great  scholar  to 
explain  these  variations  on  the  basis  of  Matthew. 
Following  Wernle,  he  begins  with  Matthew  and 
attributes  all  variations  to  Luke  which  he  possibly 
can.  But  even  he  feels  compelled  to  qualify  the 
statement  of  Wernle  that  "almost  everywhere 
Matthew  has  preserved  a  better  text  than  Luke," 
with  the  correction,  "doch  hatte  er  hinzufugen 
mlissen  dass  sich  bei  Matthaus  einige  sehr  schwere 
Eingriffe  in  den  Text  finden  wie  sie  sich  Lukas  nicht 
erlaubt  hat."  He  accepts,  however,  the  principle 
of  Wernle  that  in  Luke  we  have  an  "  Umsetzung  der 
Reden  in  Erzahlungen  "  and  even  in  the  sequence  of 
the  sayings  makes  Matthew  his  basis.  The  result  is 
that  Sec.  4  of  his  second  chapter  is  the  weakest 
section  in  the  book.     The  need  of  making  Luke  our 


Sequence  of  Parallel  Sections  137 

basis  cannot  be  shown  to  better  advantage  than 
by  examining  this  discussion. 

Harnack  recognizes,  as  everyone  must,  that 
up  to  and  including  the  centurion  of  Capernaum 
incident  the  order  is  the  same.  He  also  notices  that 
the  instructions  to  the  disciples  are  given  in  the 
same  sequence  in  both  Gospels,  though  in  Luke 
they  are  distributed,^  and  then  he  says:  "It  is  at 
the  same  time  shown  that  these  sections,  which  are 
indeed  closely  allied  in  the  subject-matter,  were  not 
at  first  brought  together  by  Matthew,  but  that  in 
Q  they  stood  in  the  same  order  of  succession  as 
that  of  the  First  Gospel;  for  it  is  clear  that  Luke 
also  found  them  in  this  order.  It  is  noteworthy 
that  this  evangelist  has  distributed  them  through- 
out chaps.  9,  10,  12,  14,  17  without  altering  their 
order  of  succession."^  So  noteworthy  is  it,  in  fact, 
as  to  seem  impossible.  No  motive  is  apparent; 
it  is  done  from  pure  arbitrariness.  Luke  never 
treated  Mark  in  this  way;  why  should  it  be 
assumed  that  he  did  so  with  Q,  which  he  evidently 

*  The  present  writer  had  already  mentioned  this  likeness  in  a 
paper  before  the  Society  of  Biblical  Literature  in  New  York, 
December,  1906. 

»Seep.  175. 


138  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

regarded  with  even  more  reverence?  On  the 
other  hand,  how  perfectly  natural  that  Matthew 
should  desire  to  group  together  all  instructions  to 
his  disciples,  just  as  he  grouped  together  the 
miracles  of  Mark,  and  that  in  so  doing  he  should 
simply  add  them  one  to  the  other  in  the  sequence 
in  which  he  found  them. 

Then  Harnack  goes  on  to  say  that  in  Q  the 
discourse  on  John  the  Baptist  followed  the  send- 
ing out  of  the  disciples.  Why?  ^'Because  it  has 
been  proved  that  Matthew  and  not  Luke  has 
reproduced  the  arrangement  of  the  source  in 
(Matt.)  chaps.  8-10."  The  proof  in  question  is 
that  which  we  have  quoted  above.  The  evidence 
we  previously  presented  for  the  Lukan  position  of 
this  discourse  in  Q  is  independent  of  either  theory 
regarding  the  common  sequence  of  the  instructions 
to  the  disciples  in  Matthew  and  Luke. 

Harnack  points  to  the  Lukan  sequence  of 
Secs.^  13,  15,  16,  19,  26,  28  (17:3,  4),  29,  30  (only 
the  last  sentence,  Luke  19:26,  is  assigned  by  him 
to  Q)  and  maintains  that  every  difference  from 
Matthew  in  order  is  due  to  Luke's  changes.     Luke 

^  Hamack's  sections  are  so  similar  to  those  used  in  this  dis- 
cussion that  for  the  sake  of  convenience  the  same  numbers  are 
used  here  as  elsewhere.    His  numbers  are  different. 


Sequence  oj  Parallel  Sections  139 

arbitrarily  separated  the  Lament  over  Jerusalem 
from  the  Woes  on  the  Pharisees.  It  is  he  who 
separated  Sec.  19  from  Sec.  29  and  put  the  sec- 
ond part  first.  No  attempt  is  made  to  say  why 
Luke  17:3,  4  is  differently  placed.  In  fact  it  is 
acknowledged  that  the  position  of  the  seventeen 
concluding  sayings  (according  to  his  arrangement) 
cannot  be  explained  at  all.  Besides  this,  he  says 
of  all  of  Matthew's  Sermon  on  the  Mount  which 
Luke  has  not  retained  in  6 :  20  ff .,  *^  this  is  hopeless." 
If  he  had  closed  with  an  explicit  confession  of  fail- 
ure in  the  whole  attempt,  it  would  certainly  have 
been  appropriate. 

While  one  can  never  hope  to  know  just  why 
Matthew  made  each  combination  with  Mark  and 
each  regrouping  of  sayings  just  as  he  did,  plausible 
reasons  can  always  be  suggested.  It  is  never  so 
hopeless  an.  inquiry  as  have  been  all  attempts 
to  find  grounds  for  the  transference  and  division 
of  material  which  the  critics  have  attributed  to 
Luke.  Nor  can  we  always  know  just  why  Luke 
in  each  case  adopted  the  historical  setting  which 
he  did;  but  at  least  we  can  show  that  his  treatment 
of  the  material  is  reasonable  and  natural. 


CHAPTER  IV 

UNITY  AND  COMPLETENESS  OF  THE  COMMON 
MATERIAL  IN  MATTHEW  AND  LUKE 

Wendt's  reconstruction  of  Q  has  been  called  "A 
heap  of  interesting  ruins  without  beginning,  with- 
out ending."  Almost  as  much  might  be  said  of 
the  source  which  Harnack  has  found.  The  sem- 
blance of  order  which  he  gives  is  reached  only  by- 
omitting  a  large  portion  of  the  material.  Has 
the  Q  which  we  have  attempted  to  reconstruct  any 
self-consistency?  Can  we  imagine  its  having 
existed  alone  ? 

Examining  once  more  these  sections  in  the  order 
which  Luke  gives  them  we  find  that  Sees,  i  and  2 
form  a  natural  introduction.  The  resemblance 
here  to  Mark  at  once  impresses  us.  Mark  also 
began  with  the  Baptist  and  his  preaching.  The 
likeness  to  Mark  becomes  yet  closer  when  we 
recognize  that  the  account  of  the  temptation  cannot 
have  stood  alone.  Some  reference  to  the  baptism 
and  the  voice  from  heaven  must  have  preceded. 
But  Matthew  and  Luke  have  here  followed  Mark, 

140 


Unity  of  Common  Material  141 

so  that  we  can  no  longer  know  what  account  Q 
gave  of  the  baptism.  It  is  possible  that  the  bap- 
tismal words,  *'Thou  art  my  son,  this  day  have  I 
begotten  thee,"  which  are  found  in  the  Old  Latin 
MSS  of  Luke  and  in  so  many  Church  Fathers,  are 
a  trace  of  Q.  One  naturally  asks  whether  this 
account  of  John  the  Baptist's  preaching  and  of 
Jesus'  baptism  and  temptation  gives  an  appropriate 
introduction  to  a  writing  which  deals  primarily  with 
teachings  ?  While  Q  in  no  sense  seeks  to  preserve 
a  chronological  order,  we  shall  see  that  in  broad 
outlines  there  is  a  recognition  of  the  sequence  the 
teachings  had  in  Jesus'  life.  A  collection  that 
closed  with  eschatological  teachings  might  properly 
start  with  material  attached  to  the  beginning  of 
Jesus'  ministry.  The  purpose  which  this  intro- 
duction serves  is  evident:  it  presents  the  divine 
commission  and  power  of  the  Jesus  whose  sayings 
are  to  be  given.  Although  Sec.  i  retains  the  char- 
acteristics of  John  the  Baptist,  its  primary  interest 
is  in  his  recognition  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  This 
recognition  is  confirmed  by  the  voice  from  heaven, 
an  account  of  which  must  have  followed,  and  also 
by  his  conquest  of  Satan  in  the  temptation  scene. 


142  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

The  intent  of  the  whole  is  to  present  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah,  the  divinely  authorized  teacher.  His 
wonderful  works  can  then  be  assumed.  It  is  con- 
sistent with  this  that  he  is  called  Son  of  Man 
from  the  beginning.^  The  term  is  not  explained 
any  more  than  it  is  in  Mark,  but,  as  is  not  so  certain 
in  Mark,  in  Q  it  always  means  the  Messiah.^  These 
sections  also  have  a  special  interest  to  Q  on  their 
own  account.  Sec.  i  is  related  to  Sec.  5,  where  a 
special  concern  in  the  Baptist  is  evident.  The 
teaching  of  the  need  of  repentance  here  was  also 
something  in  which  Q  was  deeply  interested.  In 
Sees.  8,  15,  21,  22,  23  it  is  repeatedly  emphasized. 
Likewise  the  temptation,  Sec.  2,  showing  Jesus' 
conquest  over  Satan,  prepares  for  the  development 
of  the  same  theme,  which  we  find  later  in  Sees.  9 
and  13.^ 

Nowhere  in  the  whole  writing  is  the  sequence  of 
thought  harder  to  determine  than  in  the  next 
three  sections.  Sees.  3  and  4  were  surely  closely 
related   in   Q.     Indeed   in   no   place   have   both 

^  The  title  is  doubtful  in  Luke  6: 22,  but  both  evangelists  give  it 
in  Sec.  5  (Luke  7: 34;  Matt.  11 :  19)  and  it  is  used  freely  after  that. 
'Luke  9:58  is  hardly  an  exception. 
3  For  the  relation  here  of  Q  to  Mark  see  further,  p.  190. 


Unity  of  Common  Material  143 

evangelists  so  carefully  preserved  the  connecting 
link  as  here,  and  here  is  the  only  geographical 
setting  in  the  whole  source.  One's  first  thought 
is  that  there  is  some  historical  reminiscence  that 
has  been  retained.  But  we  cannot  think  that  any 
such  historical  connection  would  be  sufficient 
explanation  of  its  presence  here  if  Q  is  at  all 
what  the  rest  of  the  common  material  would  lead 
us  to  think  it  is.  Moreover,  in  Sec.  4  the  primary 
interest  is  not  in  the  wonderful  work  of  Jesus  but 
in  what  Jesus  says  to  the  centurion.  Harnack 
even  thinks  that  in  Q  the  account  of  the  actual 
healing  was  not  given.'  That  Jesus  should  thus 
commend  a  heathen  for  his  faith  was  a  word  of 
the  greatest  significance  to  the  early  church;  and 
it  may  well  be  that  so  full  a  narrative  setting  in  this 
one  case  has  been  preserved  just  because  of  its 
unique  importance.  And  at  least  a  suggestion  can 
be  offered  that  may  indicate  some  relation  in 
thought  to  the  preceding  Sec.  3. 

In  considering  Sec.  3  we  must  first  free  our 
minds  from  the  composite  discourse  of  Matthew 
which  is  most  familiar  to  us.     The  theme  of  the 

»  See  above,  p.  42. 


144  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

common  material  here  is  love,  the  great  principle 
of  conduct.  Beatitudes  are  pronounced  upon  the 
humble  disciples  and  they  are  taught  to  be  kind  and 
sympathetic  even  toward  their  enemies;  thus 
they  are  to  become  sons  of  the  Most  High.  Char- 
ity of  judgment  is  commanded  in  unqualified 
terms.  Unless  they  bear  such  fruitage  the  true 
life  is  not  in  them.  They  must  not  only  say 
*  *  Lord ,  Lord , ' '  they  must  "  do  "  these  things .  Has 
it  no  significance  that  in  immediate  connection  with 
this  discourse  on  love  and  charity  of  judgment 
should  come  the  narrative  pointing  to  the  high 
regard  which  Jesus  showed  toward  the  faithful 
Gentile?  As  we  know,  there  was  not  another 
question  so  divisive  in  the  early  church  as  this  of 
the  Gentiles,  none  which  so  called  for  the  exercise 
of  the  qualities  commanded  in  the  previous  section. 
We  are  perhaps  not  justified  in  saying  that  that  is 
the  only  reason  Q  had  for  putting  this  narrative 
just  here,  but  at  least  we  see  that  there  is  eminent 
appropriateness  in  this  connection.  It  is  also  to  be 
noticed  that  Sec.  5,  which  follows,  takes  up  another 
problem  of  the  early  church,  kindred  to  that  of 
Sec.  4. 


Unity  oj  Common  Material  145 

Attention  has  just  been  called  to  the  concern 
in  the  Baptist  shown  in  Sec.  i.  He  is  there  a  dis- 
tinct personality,  but,  as  is  clearly  seen,  one  who 
humbly  subordinates  himself  to  the  Christ.  Sec.  5, 
likewise,  while  it  dwells  upon  Jesus'  high  regard  for 
the  Baptist,  closes  Jesus'  estimate  of  him  with  the 
words,  ^'yet  he  that  is  but  little  in  the  Kingdom  of 
God  is  greater  than  he";  and  then  attention  is 
directed  to  the  fact  that  the  Jews  treated  John  in 
the  same  way  in  which  they  did  Jesus.  One  asks 
again,  What  is  the  meaning  of  this  concern  in  John 
the  Baptist,  this  careful  definition  of  his  true  rela- 
relation  to  Jesus  ?  Do  we  see  here  how  at  a  much 
earlier  period  than  the  Fourth  Gospel  the  first 
disciples  met  the  problem  of  their  own  relation 
to  the  disciples  of  the  Baptist,  and  of  the  use  which 
was  made  of  his  name  by  other  Jews  as  well  ?  If  so, 
there  is  great  sympathy  with  the  followers  of 
the  Baptist  and  a  sense  of  kinship. 

Jesus'  words  upon  these  special  problems  within 
the  early  church  are  succeeded  by  a  group  on 
the  general  theme  of  Jesus'  relation  to  disciples. 
Sees.  6-12.  The  disciples  here  are  never  limited 
to  the  Twelve;  they  comprise  the  larger  circle  of 


146  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

followers.  Sec.  6  is  really  a  call  to  service.  Fol- 
lowing Jesus  is  no  easy  matter.  It  means  strenuous 
activity.'  Home  must  be  given  up,  natural  duties 
to  kindred  must  be  left  behind.  To  become  a 
disciple  one  must  put  his  hand  to  the  plow  and 
not  look  back.  Sec.  7  contains  Jesus'  commission 
to  the  disciples  as  they  are  sent  out  to  be  laborers 
in  the  harvest.  Their  work  is  identified  with 
Jesus'  own  work.  In  Sec.  8  woes  are  pronounced 
on  the  cities  which  have  been  the  theater  of  Jesus' 
work  and  that  of  his  disciples  because  of  their 
failure  to  repent.  Although  the  reasons  for  includ- 
ing Sec.  9  in  Q  have  not  as  yet  been  presented,  why 
Matthew  should  omit  it  is  so  evident  and  its  close 
relation  to  the  following  section  is  so  convincing 
that  we  have  added  it  here  for  the  sake  of  complete- 
ness. It  may,  however,  be  left  out  without  ma- 
terially affecting  the  present  discussion.  The  joy 
of  Jesus  in  the  success  of  his  disciples  is  expressed — 
his  conquest  of  Satan  is  through  them  being  com- 
pleted.    In  Sees.  10  and  11  they  are  assured  that, 

*  It  is  doubtful  whether  9: 58  can  refer  to  Jesus'  poverty;  the 
context  implies  that  he  is  too  busy,  not  too  poor,  to  abide  in  a 
home.  Foxes  and  birds  are  appropriate  because  they  also  lead 
a  wandering  life,  but  even  they  have  a  home. 


Unity  of  Common  Material  147 

though  they  are  only  babes  (in  contrast  to  the 
scribes  perhaps),  they  are  learning  that  knowledge 
of  God  which  Jesus  would  bring  them.  This  is 
that  for  which  the  prophets  and  kings  of  the  past 
have  longed.  Sec.  12  is  not  closely  joined  with 
what  precedes,  but  it  follows  very  naturally.  A 
question  about  prayer  is  most  appropriate  after 
the  preceding  word  of  Jesus.  Special  emphasis 
is  laid  upon  the  power  of  prayer  in  the  reply. 
They  are  assured  of  divine  aid  and  protection;  they 
do  not  do  their  work  single-handed. 

The  next  group  of  sections,  Sees.  13-17,  has 
to  do  with  the  opposition  which  Jesus  met,  espe- 
cially from  the  Pharisees.  This  opposition  vitally 
concerned  the  early  Palestinian  Christians,  who 
themselves  had  to  bear  its  brunt.  It  is  interesting 
that  the  dommant  note  of  all  that  is  said  is  the 
prophetic  call  to  repentance.  It  is  this  failure 
to  repent  which  brings  upon  *'this  generation" 
and  its  leaders  the  woes  of  Jesus.  A  passionate 
earnestness  is  still  evident  in  the  words.  Q 
itself  must  have  shared  in  Paul's  yearning  for 
the  repentance  of  Israel,  and  both  only  retain 
some  measure  of  what  was  a  supreme  motive 


148  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

with  Jesus.  In  Sec.  13  the  charge  that  Jesus 
cast  out  demons  by  the  power  of  the  prince  of 
demons  is  met  by  Jesus  himself.  Whether  Sec.  14 
is  to  be  considered  as  a  true  parable  or  has  some 
literal  significance  is  hard  to  determine.  Jtilicher' 
interprets  it  as  a  parable  illustrating  vs.  23.  His 
explanation  is  tempting,  and  yet  it  seems  more 
natural  to  think  that  Q  regarded  it  as  a  contrast 
drawn  between  the  healing  of  Jewish  exorcists  and 
that  of  Jesus;  theirs  was  merely  negative,  his 
filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  demand  for  a 
sign,  Sec.  15,  is  met  by  the  assertion  that  no  sign 
shall  be  given  except  the  sign  of  Jonah.  The 
Ninevites  repented  at  the  preaching  of  Jonah; 
the  Queen  of  the  South  journeyed  from  the  ends  of 
the  earth  to  hear  the  wisdom  of  Solomon.  This 
generation  has  for  its  guidance  what  is  greater  than 
the  preaching  of  Jonah  or  the  wisdom  of  Solomon — 
Jesus  and  his  message.  What  they  need  is  not 
signs,  but  eyes  to  see.  Then  follows  Jesus'  denun- 
ciation of  the  Pharisees  and  their  false  piety,  of 
the  scribes  and  their  selfish  leadership,  and  of  this 
hardened  generation  which  has  no  ear  for  the 

*  Die  Gieichnisreden  Jesu,  p.  238. 


Unity  of  Common  Material  149 

message  of  the  prophet  in  their  midst.  The 
judgment  of  God  awaits  them. 

After  this,  attention  naturally  turns  again  to 
the  disciples,  but  this  time  it  is  words  of  warning 
and  encouragement  which  are  spoken.  Sec.  17 
warns  them  of  dangers  that  they  must  face  but 
assures  them  of  God's  care  over  them.  From  this 
section  on,  attention  focuses  more  and  more  upon 
the  kingdom  and  the  coming  day  of  the  Son  of 
Man.  In  Sec.  18  the  disciples  are  instructed  to 
seek  the  kingdom  and  leave  all  else  to  God.  "  Fear 
not,  little  flock,  for  it  is  your  Father's  good  pleasure 
to  give  you  the  Kingdom."  Then  come,  Sec.  19, 
parables  urgently  emphasizing  the  need  of  watch- 
fulness for  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man. 

What  does  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  mean  ? 
It  means.  Sec'  20,  the  kindling  of  a  terrible  fire. 
Jesus  has  a  fearful  baptism  with  which  to  be 
baptized.  A  period  of  strife  is  at  hand.  It  means 
also,  Sees.  21,  22,  23,^  a  judgment.  It  is  urged 
that  the  interval  is  very  short,  and  another  earnest 
appeal  is  made  to  the  people  to  repent.    The 

*  Arguments  for  assigning  Sees.  21  and  23  to  Q  are  presented 
on  pp.  169  ff.  It  is  not  necessary  for  present  purposes  to  ascribe 
them  to  Q. 


150  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

judgment  is  at  hand.  What  is  the  kingdom?  is 
asked  in  Sec.  24,  and  the  answer  is  that  it  is  some- 
thing hidden  and  secret  now  but  it  shall  be 
revealed  in  great  power  and  glory.  Who  shall  share 
in  the  kingdom?  is  the  question  propounded  in 
Sec.  25.  Only  those  who  are  worthy,  is  the  reply; 
and  this  means  that  those  Israelites  who  depend 
upon  their  relationship  to  Abraham  are  to  be 
rejected  and  to  behold  Gentiles  in  their  places. 
Sec.  26  adds  a  lament  over  Jerusalem,  the  people 
forsaken  of  God.  There  is  no  reference  here  to  the 
destruction  of  the  city.  It  is  the  condemnation 
of  God  upon  it  which  is  presented.  The  tender 
note  that  can  be  felt  in  every  word  spoken  in  con- 
demnation of  Isarel  ought  to  be  noticed.  It  is  in 
this  connection  that  the  full  meaning  of  Sec.  27 
to  the  early  Christians  appears.  To  come  out  from 
Judaism  and  be  followers  of  Jesus  had  literally 
meant  the  breaking  of  home  ties,  the  abandonment, 
now  of  father  or  mother,  now  of  son  or  daughter. 
But  this  they  are  told  is  the  price  Jesus  expected 
them  to  pay. 

The  question  where  and  when  the  day  of  the  Son 
of  Man  is  to  be  is  then  asked,  Sec.  29.     But  no 


Unity  of  Common  Material  151 

answer  is  given  to  their  questions.  All  searching 
for  outward  signs  is  condemned.  They  will  know 
the  place  when  the  time  comes  to  know.  The 
whole  world  will  know,  for  it  will  be  as  the  Hghtning, 
visible  from  the  one  end  of  the  heavens  to  the  other. 
They  are  to  be  ready  at  all  times,  for  it  will  be  a 
day  of  judgment  from  which  there  can  be  no 
escape.  With  Sec.  30  the  source  Q  most  appro- 
priately closes.  Their  Lord  has  given  his  disciples 
their  commission.  Let  each  man  do  his  duty  and 
he  shall  enter  into  the  joy  of  his  Lord,  when  he 
comes  in  his  glory. 

There  is  left  unaccounted  for  that  group  of  mere 
fragments.  Sec.  28,  which  Luke  has  unsuccessfully 
attempted  to  adjust  to  other  material  here  intro- 
duced. Is  this  an  instance  of  that  phenomenon 
with  which  the  Old  Testament  has  made  us 
familiar — a  group  of  sayings,  too  precious  to  be 
lost,  added  at  the  end  of  the  whole?  No  other 
explanation  so  well  fits  the  facts  of  the  case.  What 
would  be  more  natural  than  that  sayings  of  Jesus 
deemed  too  precious  to  be  lost  should  be  appended 
at  the  close  of  a  writing  that  assumed  to  give  the 
Lord's    teachings!    The    peculiar    conflation    we 


152  Matthew'' s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

find  in  chaps.  16  and  17  of  Luke  is  thus  satisfactorily 
explained.  In  the  source  this  section  must  then 
have  followed  Sec.  30;  the  position  of  these  sayings 
in  Luke  is  determined  by  the  other  material  he  has 
here  inserted.^ 

Disregarding  then  this  section,  which  may 
properly  be  looked  upon  as  an  appendix,  surely  we 
have  in  this  common  material  of  Matthew  and 
Luke  something  more  than  a  heap  of  ruins.  It 
has  a  plan  and  an  intelligible  order ;  further  study 
of  the  standpoint  of  Q  may  cause  us  to  revise  much 
here  presented,  but  it  is  hard  to  see  how  anyone 
can  question  that  there  is  a  real  consistency  and 
completeness  in  this  material.  It  must  also  be 
borne  in  mind  that  Q  is  only  known  to  us  in  the 
versions  of  Matthew  and  Luke;  and  what  is  most 
characteristic  of  the  source  is  just  what  has  been 
obscured  by  the  later  editors.  Every  effort  ought 
to  be  made  to  avoid  any  forced  interpretations, 
but  is  there  not  a  plan  and  sequence  here  in  the 
material  as  it  stands?  There  is  no  need  of  any 
scheme  of  our  own  contriving;  room  may  freely 
be  left  for  difference  of  interpretation.     We  need 

^  For  the  arrangement  of  this  material  in  Luke  see  pp.  175  f. 


Unity  of  Common  Material  153 

only  accept  the  order  of  Luke  as  a  reliable  witness 
for  the  order  of  his  source^  and  to  omit  only  what 
Matthew  has  omitted.''  Then,  and  not  until  then, 
does  the  general  scheme  which  we  have  outlined 
appear.  This  shows  also  that  it  is  not  Luke's 
creation.  Luke  has  tried  to  convert  this  topical 
into  a  chronological  sequence.  Some  of  his  in- 
sertions can  be  explained  in  no  other  way,  and  the 
introductory  settings  that  he  has  supplied  point 
to  the  same  conclusion. 

Have  we  not  now  the  keystone  in  place  which 
gives  binding  force  to  all  the  arguments  previously 
presented  ?  Proof  has  been  given  of  close  literary 
resemblance  in  most  of  the  material  and  striking 
similarity  of  thought  in  all  of  it.  When  to  this 
is  added  a  plausible  explanation  of  how  the  varia- 
tions in  the  two  versions  have  arisen  and  an 
exposition  of  the  self-consistency  and  unity  of  the 
material,  then  surely  the  existence  of  the  source  Q 
can  no  longer  be  questioned,  and  there  is  good 

^  And  it  is  necessary  only  to  assume  that  this  is  substantially 
correct. 

^  Sees.  9  and  23  were  added  above  only  for  the  sake  of  com- 
pleteness, because  the  evidence  is  so  strong  that  they  belong 
to  Q. 


154  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

reason  to  believe  that  we  are  on  the  right  way  to  its 
reconstruction. 

We  have  shown  that  one  does  not  need  to  add 
anything  to  the  common  material  to  make  it  a  unit. 
This  is  a  strong  presumption  in  itself  against  finding 
extensive  omissions  on  the  part  of  Matthew  or 
Luke  which  ought  to  be  added  to  the  source  Q. 
But  before  discussing  the  relation  of  Q  to  this 
independent  material  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in 
detail,  there  are  certain  other  general  considera- 
tions, favoring  the  practical  completeness  of  what 
these  evangelists  give  in  common,  which  should  be 
mentioned.  From  the  start  it  ought  to  be  remem- 
bered that  in  just  so  far  as  we  expand  the  limits  of 
this  source  we  increase  the  difficulty  of  accounting 
for  its  becoming  lost  as  an  independent  document. 
And  again  the  great  respect  which  both  evangelists 
show  for  it  is  against  any  considerable  omissions. 
The  temptation  to  so  many  investigators  in  this 
field  has  been  to  include  in  Q  more  or  less  of  the 
rich  material  peculiar  to  Luke,  but  it  is  just  in  this 
direction  that  one  needs  to  be  on  one's  guard. 
Matthew  omits  almost  nothing  from  Mark. 
Would  he  make  such  extended  omissions  from 


Unity  of  Common  Material  155 

that  source  which,  it  is  possible  at  least,  gave  his 
Gospel  its  name  ?  It  is  true  that  while  Luke  seems 
to  have  shown  a  higher  regard  for  Q  than  for 
Mark,  the  reverse  seems  to  be  the  case  in  respect 
to  Matthew.  Nevertheless,  the  First  Gospel  has 
preserved  Q  very  faithfully;  this  is  assured  by  the 
close  literary  relationship  between  Matthew  and 
Luke  in  all  of  this  material — much  closer  than 
in  what  they  both  give  from  Mark.  Another  im- 
portant consideration  is  that  the  common  material 
is,  as  we  have  tried  to  show,  self-consistent  and 
complete  in  itself.  One  needs  to  add  nothing 
from  either  Gospel  to  make  it  a  unit. 

The  only  serious  argument  against  this  which 
has  been  presented  is  that  Q  includes  narratives, 
that  it  presupposes  a  knowledge  of  the  works  of 
Jesus,  that  it  has  a  historical  introduction.  It 
must  therefore  have  been  a  Gospel  rather  than  a 
collection  of  sayings,  it  is  held.  All  recognize  that 
Q  contains  narratives,  but  in  every  case  the  narra- 
tive is  subordinated  to  the  teaching.  Jesus  did 
not  preach  a  series  of  sermons  which  needed  only 
to  be  collected  into  a  book.  The  narrative  and 
circumstantial  character  that  clings  to  some  of  this 


156  Matthew* s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

material  is  not  an  evidence  of  a  dramatic  historical 
purpose,  but  only  of  its  primitive  character.  Some 
of  the  soil  still  clings  to  these  sayings,  showing 
whence  they  were  dug.  If  the  opposing  argument 
is  to  have  any  force  it  ought  to  be  shown  that  the 
narrative  material  is  secondary  to  the  sayings. 
But  there  is  only  one  section  in  which  this  possi- 
bility has  been  cogently  suggested,  and  that  is  in 
Sec.  4;  and  yet  if  it  could  be  proved  in  this  one 
case,  the  great  importance  attached  to  the  saying 
here  might  account  for  the  exception.  In  truth, 
however,  the  grounds  for  regarding  this  narrative 
as  a  later  addition  are  inconclusive;  it  furnishes 
strong  indications  of  its  primitive  character.* 
Nowhere  else  is  there  the  slightest  ground  for 
regarding  the  narrative  as  secondary. 

It  is  also  true  that  Q  has  a  historical  introduc- 
tion in  Sees,  i  and  2.  A  historical  introduction 
might  imply  a  historical  conclusion.  It  is  certainly 
the  unexpected  to  find  a  primitive  Christian  writing 
with  so  little  about  the  death  and  resurrection  of 
Jesus.  Here  there  is  no  mention  of  the  resur- 
rection and  but  slight  reference  to  the  Passion  and 

'^  See  above,  p.  40. 


Unity  of  Common  Material  157 

death.  It  may  be  that  the  death  was  not  even 
explicitly  mentioned.  Luke  14: 27  could  refer  to  it 
only  indirectly.  Luke  12:49,  5°  ^^^  ^T-^S  are 
not  in  Matthew.  But  Luke  11:475.  and  13:34 
indicate  that  Jesus  must  share  the  fate  of  the 
prophets  who  have  gone  before.  The  shadow  of  the 
cross  can  be  observed  in  all  the  later  sections  of  Q, 
but  this  is  only  because  it  is  inherent  in  the  ma- 
terial itself.  The  only  way  in  which  any  account 
of  Jesus'  death  and  resurrection  can  be  ascribed 
to  Q  is  to  assign  to  that  source  material  which 
Matthew  has  omitted,  for  it  is  evident  that 
Matthew  has  no  primitive  source  for  the  Passion 
and  resurrection  besides  Mark,  whom  he  follows 
closely.    Luke  on  the  other  hand  certainly  has.^ 

F.  C.  Burkitt  in  his  recent  book.  The  Gospel  His- 
tory and  Its  Transmission,  favors  the  view  that  this 
independent  information  was  obtained  from  Q, 
and  Harnack  allows  the  possibility  but  does  not 
approve  of  it.  Both  B.  Weiss  and  J.  Weiss  have 
long  supported  this  theory.  The  outstanding 
objection  to  it  is  the  fact  that  not  a  trace  of  its 

^  An  alternative  possibility,  improbable  as  it  is,  should  be 
mentioned,  i.e.,  that  Mark's  account  came  from  Q.  The  relation 
of  Q  to  Mark  will  be  considered  later. 


158  Matthew* s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

influence  appears  in  Matthew.  How  strange  that 
he  should  have  felt  the  need  of  weaving  the  Q 
version  of  the  calumny  of  the  Pharisees  and  of  the 
sending  forth  of  the  disciples  into  the  corresponding 
narrative  of  Mark,  but  that  when  he  came  to  the 
most  important  matter  of  all,  the  account  of  the 
Passion,  he  should  ignore  this  source  entirely! 
He  takes  pains  to  add  the  few  late  apocryphal  bits 
of  information  which  come  to  him  but  omits  all 
reference  to  this  rich  material  that  Luke  is  sup- 
posed to  have  found  in  Q.  Even  a  superficial 
study  of  the  First  Gospel  ought  to  make  it  clear 
that  the  only  reliable  source  for  the  narrative  of 
Jesus'  life  which  that  evangelist  possesses  is  Mark.' 
These  outstanding  considerations  far  outweigh 
all  subterranean  threads  of  connection  which  may 
be  found  between  this  independent  material  of 
Luke  and  Q.  In  fact,  however,  no  one  supporting 
this  view  has  as  yet  taken  the  trouble  to  point  out 
such  threads  of  connection  if  there  are  any.  The 
only  resemblance  that  is  apparent  is  that  in  Luke 
22:35-39,  where  22:35  seems  to  be  a  direct  refer- 

^  The  possibility  that  he  had  sources  of  Mark  is  to  be  left 
open;  whether  Q  could  be  one  of  such  sources  will  be  considered 
later. 


Unity  of  Common  Material  159 

ence  to  10:4,  but  it  must  be  remembered  that,  if  in 
Luke's  source  terms  different  from  what  Luke  had 
himself  previously  used  had  really  stood,  that  evan- 
gelist would  have  been  constrained  to  conform  them 
to  9 : 3  or  10 : 4.  No  theories  can  be  built  upon  this 
likeness.  Surely  the  general  character  of  this  in- 
dependent Passion  material  of  Luke  is  much  more 
closely  related  to  the  narratives  peculiar  to  Luke 
that  have  preceded  than  to  the  common  material 
of  Q.  Such  historical  notes  as  8:2,  3;  13:31-33 
seem  closely  akin. 

It  is  this  lack  of  any  positive  foundation  which 
outweighs  any  expectation  one  might  have  that 
such  an  account  would  follow  in  Q.  The  evidence 
of  the  Gospels  themselves  opposes  it.  When  also 
we  examine  this  expectation  itself  we  see  that  it 
rests  upon  slight  foundations.  Q  was  not  written 
for  missionary  purposes.  Knowledge  of  the  general 
outline  of  Jesus'  life  was  taken  for  granted.  It  was 
written  for  the  benefit  of  the  early  Christian  com- 
munity, furnishing  them  a  collection  of  the  teach- 
ings of  Jesus  with  their  special  problems  and 
difficulties  in  mind.  While  from  this  standpoint  a 
historical  introduction  was  not  necessary,  still  it  was 


i6o  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

not  inappropriate.  Such  a  collection  of  Jesus' 
teachings  could  very  properly  begin  with  a  pres- 
entation of  the  divine  authority  and  power  of  the 
teacher,  and  this  is  all  we  have  a  right  to  demand. 

If  we  may  judge  anything  of  the  sequence  of 
events  in  the  life  of  Christ  from  Mark  it  is  true 
that  there  is  some  recognition  of  the  same  sequence 
in  Q  also.  Q  begins  with  the  Baptist,  implies  a 
successful  ministry  culminating  in  the  joy  of  Jesus 
at  the  return  of  the  disciples;  then  the  gradual 
opposition  which  developed  is  set  forth.  The  tone 
of  the  sayings  grows  more  and  more  somber  and  the 
later  sayings  are  dominantly  eschatological.  This 
is  a  general  trend  that  we  recognize  in  Mark  also 
and  probably  rests  on  real  historical  remembrance. 
But  again  there  is  no  reason  why  a  collection  of 
Jesus'  teachings  should  not  preserve  in  broad 
outlines  the  sequence  they  had  in  the  life  of  Jesus. 

Such  a  question  as  this  cannot,  however,  be 
decided  by  general  considerations.  A  closer  exam- 
ination must  be  made  into  the  special  material  of 
Matthew  and  Luke  and  its  relation  to  that  which 
they  have  in  common,  and  the  relation  of  Q  to 
Mark  must  also  be  considered.     But  in  view  of  the 


Unity  of  Common  Material  i6i 

general  arguments  which  have  been  presented, 
we  shall  not  approach  these  questions  from  the 
standpoint  of  Wendt,  who  assigned  to  Q  whatever 
he  could  not  find  sufficient  reason  for  putting 
elsewhere.  Good  grounds  will  be  demanded  for 
any  section  to  be  included  in  Q  besides  the  com- 
mon material. 


CHAPTER  V 

RELATION  OF  THE  COMMON  SOURCE  TO  THE 
INDEPENDENT  MATERIAL  OF  LUKE 

What  did  Luke  retain  from  Q  which  Matthew 
omits?  In  discussing  Sec.  i  we  have  already 
seen  that  3:io-i6(Z  cannot  belong  to  Q,  and  this 
may  be  taken  as  a  typical  insertion  of  Luke  added 
in  a  characteristic  manner.  Luke  3:19,  20  may 
come  from  some  special  source  of  Luke,  but  it 
is  only  a  summary  of  what  Mark  says  in  6:17  ff. 
The  genealogy  which  follows  the  account  of  Jesus ^ 
baptism  could  not  have  stood  in  the  same  source 
that  Matthew  used.  This  same  argument  applies 
of  course  to  the  birth  narratives  of  chaps,  i  and  2. 
Wellhausen  has  given  plausible  reasons  for  believ- 
ing that  Luke  had  a  source  originally  written  in 
Semitic  for  the  material  which  he  combines  with 
Mark's  account  of  the  rejection  at  Nazareth, 
chap.  4.  But  there  is  no  reason  why  this  may  not 
have  been  true  of  other  sources  of  Luke  besides 
Mark  and  Q.  Some  of  the  most  striking  Semiti- 
cisms  of  Luke  are  found  in  chaps,  i  and  2,  which 

162 


The  Common  Source  and  Luke  163 

Matthew  cannot  have  known.  There  is  not  the 
slightest  reason  for  assigning  any  part  of  4:i6ff. 
to  Q.  In  this  passage  there  is  an  interest  in  the 
widow  and  the  outcast,  Hke  that  in  3 :  10-15,  which 
we  shall  find  characteristic  of  Luke.  The  miracu- 
lous draught  of  fishes  in  chap.  5  has  no  point  of 
contact  with  Q.  In  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
Sec.  3,  we  have  given  reasons  for  regarding  6 :  24-26 
as  an  addition  of  Luke.  Whether  Luke  has  made 
any  additions  in  Sec.  4  is  doubtful.  This  was 
shown  in  our  previous  discussion.  Luke  7:11-17 
would  certainly  not  have  been  omitted  by  Matthew 
if  he  knew  it.  Its  insertion  by  Luke,  like  that  of 
7:21,  is  readily  understood;  it  prepares  the  way 
for  7:22.  That  Matthew  and  Luke  supply  this 
deficiency  in  such  different  ways  shows  that  they 
are  not  here  following  their  common  source. 

Besides  the  mere  editorial  insertions  in  Sec.  5 
we  have  the  interesting  addition  of  7:29,  30. 
The  context  shows  that  they  are  not  original  here.' 
But  they  might  still  be  a  misplaced  saying  of  Q. 
That  this  is  a  genuine  word  of  Jesus  is  made  more 
probable  by  the  fact  that  in  Matt.  21:32  we  have 

^  See  p.  44. 


164  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

the  same  thought;  but  the  entirely  different  lan- 
guage in  which  they  express  the  saying  indicates 
that  they  found  it  in  no  common  written  source,  but 
rather  in  common  tradition.  Luke  follows  this 
section  with  the  narrative  of  the  sinful  woman  at 
the  house  of  Simon  the  Pharisee.  But  it  is  only  in 
Luke's  addition,  7:29,  30,  that  the  contrast  is 
drawn  between  the  outcasts  and  the  Pharisees. 
It  is  not  found  in  Q  at  all,  and  here  again  it  is  the 
characteristic  Lukan  type  of  material.  Chapter  8 
begins  with  the  valuable  historical  notice  about  the 
women  who  minister  to  Jesus.  But  it  is  Luke  and 
not  Q  who  shows  special  knowledge  of  the  women 
followers  of  Jesus.  It  is  he  and  not  Q  who  shows 
himself  well  informed  regarding  Herod. ^ 

With  9:51  the  second  great  interpolation  of  Luke 
begins.  The  whole  is  represented  as  taking  place 
on  a  journey  to  Jerusalem,  9:51-53;  13:22,  33; 
17:11;  18:31;  19:11,  28.  Samaria  has  already 
been  reached  in  9:51;  in  13:31  they  are  in  the 
territory  of  Herod,  but  they  are  still  passing 
through  the  midst  of  Samaria  and  Galilee  in  17: 11. 
The    next    geographical    notice,     18:35,    places 

*  Joanna,  the  wife  of  Chuza,  Herod's  steward,  is  mentioned. 


The  Common  Source  and  Luke  165 

Jesus  and  his  disciples  at  Jericho,  where  Mark's 
itinerary  is  again  resumed.  The  background  for 
this  period  is  vaguely  thought  to  be  the  general 
region  of  southern  Galilee  and  Samaria,  and  pos- 
sibly Perea.^  The  journey  toward  Jerusalem 
seems  to  be  merely  an  artificial  scheme  for  giving 
a  sort  of  unity  to  the  whole.  Luke  found  9: 51-56 
in  some  source  or  tradition  and  used  it  as  an  intro- 
ductory setting  for  this  Q  material,  which  had  no 
background.  Here  was  a  reference  to  messengers 
whom  Jesus  sent  before  him,  9:52.  These  were 
regarded  as  the  disciples  mentioned  in  Q's  account 
of  10 : 1  ff .  Disciples  were  everywhere  mentioned 
in  Q  in  a  sense  which  implied  more  than  the 
Twelve.  Matt.  9:57-62,  for  which  Matthew  had 
found  an  appropriate  setting  when  Jesus  crossed 
over  to  the  east  shore  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  Luke 
regarded  as  a  reference  to  this  momentous  journey 
toward  Jerusalem.  All  that  followed  in  Q  was 
made  to  fit  into  this  situation.  Here  and  there 
narratives  were  added  to  give  the  whole  section 
more  of  a  historical  tone.  The  question  of  the 
lawyer  and  the  parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan, 
*  See  below,  p.  177. 


1 66  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

which  really  imply  a  Judean  setting,  were  put  here 
probably  because  of  the  reference  to  the  Samaritan; 
and  the  visit  at  the  house  of  Mary  and  Martha  was 
no  doubt  put  here  as  a  companion  piece  of  the 
answer  to  the  lawyer.  The  hearing  of  the  word  was 
thus  co-ordinated  with  works  of  charity.  Neither 
of  these  additions,  lo :  25-42,  stood  in  the  Q 
which  Matthew  read.  They  are  here  only  because 
of  9:51-56,  which  provides  the  Samaritan  back- 
ground. If  Q's  account  of  the  sending  forth  of 
the  disciples  already  had  this  entirely  different 
setting  from  that  of  Mark,  chap.  6,  it  is  more 
probable  that  Matthew  would  have  left  them 
separate. 

In  10:17-20  Luke  gives  an  account  of  the  re- 
turn of  the  disciples,  which  there  is  every  reason 
to  beUeve  stood  in  Q.  Matthew  has  omitted  it 
because  he  has  added  to  Q  here  so  much  later 
material  having  to  do  with  the  disciples'  mission 
after  the  death  of  Jesus.  The  account  of  the 
return  was  no  longer  appropriate.  The  thought 
here  is  closely  related  to  Luke  ii:2off.  The 
success  of  their  mission  means  the  overthrow  of 
the  kingdom  of  Satan. 


The  Common  Source  and  Luke  167 

The  parable  which  Luke  has  given  in  the  midst 
of  the  discourse  on  prayer  also  probably  stood  in  Q. 
Why  Matthew  should  omit  it  is  evident.  It  has 
no  proper  place  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 
Wendt's  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  p.  99,  has  pointed  out  that 
the  very  verse  of  the  following  saying,  which  Luke 
has  altered,  in  its  Matthean  form  seems  closely 
related  to  this  parable.  Matt.  7:9,  rts  eariv  ef 
vfjLcop,^  is  the  same  form  of  question  that  we  have 
in  Luke  11:5,  and  bread,  the  first  thing  asked  for 
in  7:9,  completes  the  connection  with  the  parable 
which  in  Luke  precedes.  The  fact  that  Luke  has 
here  changed  the  form  of  the  question  adds  to  the 
significance  of  this  similarity.  Another  linguistic 
relation  to  Q  is  in  the  word  xP^r^t,  found  only  in 
Matt.  6:32;  Luke  12:30,  and  twice  in  Paul.  We 
may  therefore  with  some  probabiHty  assign  this 
parable  to  Q  and  account  for  Lukan  characteristics 
as  due  to  his  stylistic  changes. 

Luke's  addition  of  11:27,  28  is  more  doubtful. 
Just  as  Mark  had  a  passage  dealing  with  Jesus' 
family   immediately    after    the    calumny    of    the 

*  This  phrase  is  found  elsewhere,  Luke  14:38;  15:4;  17:7; 
Matt.  12:11.    Whether  all  these  passages  belong  to  Q  is  doubtful. 


i68  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

Pharisees,  the  same  might  be  true  of  Q.  But,  on 
the  other  hand,  not  only  is  the  language  here 
strongly  Lukan,  but  the  truly  feminine  interest 
of  the  saying  belongs  to  what  is  most  characteristic 
of  the  Third  Gospel.  It  is  also  to  be  remembered 
that  Luke  was  familiar  with  Mark,  and  under  the 
influence  of  that  Gospel  may  have  inserted  this 
parallel  to  Mark  3:31-35  in  the  corresponding 
context.  Mark  3:31-35  itself  he  had  already 
quoted.  However,  the  possibility  may  be  left  open 
that  this  saying  was  in  Q  and  that  Matthew  in 
conflating  this  section  with  Mark  omitted  it. 

Additional  material  is  again  found  in  Luke  12: 
13-21.  It  consists  of  two  distinct  portions,  the 
question  in  regard  to  an  inheritance,  vss.  13,  14, 
and  the  parable  of  the  Rich  Fool,  vss.  16-20.  Here 
again  omission  by  Matthew  could  be  readily  under- 
stood, for  he  has  incorporated  the  sayings  here 
into  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  But  there  can  be 
no  question  that  the  connection  between  Luke 
12:12  and  12:22  is  as  good,  if  not  better,  without 
this  long  insertion.  The  application,  vs.  15, 
which  is  given  to  the  question  about  inheritances 
is  strictly  Lukan'  in  its  interest,  and  the  parable 

'  This  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  the  application  was  not 
made  by  Jesus  himself. 


The  Common  Source  and  Luke  169 

which  follows  belongs  to  the  same  group  as  those 
which  are  added  in  Luke,  chap.  16.  Furthermore, 
when  the  two  versions  of  the  sayings  that  follow 
are  compared,  it  appears  that  there  also  the  general 
principle  of  Matt.  6:19  is  in  Luke  a  concrete, 
definite  rule,  "Sell  what  you  have  and  give  alms." 
This  danger  of  covetousness  was  to  Luke  a  very 
threatening  one,  and  he  may  well  have  desired  to 
strengthen  the  force  of  Jesus'  words  here  by  this 
special  material,  which  undoubtedly  rests  upon 
reliable  tradition.  Surely  it  is  the  safer  principle 
to  leave  sayings  that  show  the  characteristic  Lukan 
standpoint  to  Luke,  when  the  context  favors  the 
view  that  they  are  an  insertion  and  they  have  not 
the  support  of  Matthew. 

Luke  12:35-38  is  a  parable  emphasizing  the 
need  of  watching,  which  is  not  found  in  Matthew. 
It  has,  however,  some  features  related  to  Matthew's 
parable  of  the  Wise  and  Foolish  Virgins.^  Verse 
376  here  introduces  an  allegorizing  feature  which 
is  a  favorite   of  Luke.     The  messianic  meal  is 

*  Wellhausen  and  others  have  made  much  of  this  resemblance, 
but  it  does  not  include  any  of  the  essential  features  and  is  not 
linguistic.  The  resemblances  which  Julicher  finds  to  Mark  1 3 :  33- 
37  are  more  interesting.  Wellhausen  finds  in  12:35,  «»'o^«^w, 
a  trace  of  a  Semitic  original.  This  would  at  least  indicate  that 
Luke  had  some  written  source  here. 


lyo  Matthew'* s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

certainly  intended  by  it.  But  the  fact  that  this 
allegorical  feature  is  here  so  entirely  out  of  place 
distinguishes  the  parable  itself  from  Luke's  char- 
acteristic material.  Matthew  might  omit  it  be- 
cause of  the  other  parables  which  he  adds  in  this 
connection  and  which  to  him  would  be  much  more 
significant. 

In  13 : 1-9  Luke  has  a  call  to  repentance  based  on 
two  Jerusalem  disasters  and  a  parable  of  a  Fig 
Tree,  teaching  how  short  an  interval  for  repentance 
is  left.  In  the  context  from  Q  in  which  these 
stand  they  are  most  fitting.  Luke  12:54-58  is 
likewise  a  call  to  repentance;  the  same  earnest, 
almost  passionate,  tone  is  continued  here.  The 
passage  is  unusually  free  from  Lukan  literary 
changes.  It  is  strikingly  Semitic  in  language,  and, 
what  is  more  important,  several  of  these  Semiti- 
cisms  relate  it  to  Q.  Ini3:4,  €0'  ous  .  .  .  .  avrovSy 
and  in  13 : 9,  TroLrjarj  Kapirop,  remind  us  strongly  of  the 
preaching  of  John  the  Baptist  on  this  same  theme 
of  repentance.  See  Matt.  3:12.  Compare  also 
Luke  6:43.  Even  more  striking,  perhaps,  is  cxfyeL- 
XeVat  =  hayyabh,  a  term  which  Luke  has  avoided  in 
11:4,  but  which  Matthew  has  retained  in  6 : 9  ff . 


The  Common  Source  and  Luke  171 

This  literary  evidence  in  connection  with  the  strik- 
ing kinship  in  thought  gives  us  sufficient  justifica- 
tion for  regarding  it  as  a  part  of  Q.  Possibly  the 
similarity  of  this  parable  to  Mark's  account  of  the 
cursing  of  the  fig  tree  may  account  for  Matthew's 
omission  here.  Luke  inserts  this  parable  but 
omits  Mark  ii:i2ff.  Matthew  may  on  similar 
grounds  have  chosen  to  retain  Mark  1 1 : 1 2  ff .  and 
to  omit  this  passage.  The  omission  remains, 
however,  difficult  to  understand. 

Luke  13 :  10-17  is  another  passage  found  only  in 
Luke.  J.  Weiss  has  argued  that  Luke  could  not 
have  inserted  it  here.  It  is  so  entirely  out  of  place, 
he  says,  that  unless  Luke  found  it  already  in  this 
context  he  would  certainly  have  placed  it  some- 
where else.  But  someone  did  place  it  here,  and  it 
is  surely  easier  to  attribute  the  insertion  to  one  who 
did  not  have  the  original  author's  sequence  of 
thought  in  mind  than  to  that  author  himself.  No 
such  inharmonious  insertion  is  found  anywhere 
in  the  material  which  both  Matthew  and  Luke  con- 
tain. Narratives  are  found  in  Q  but  the  emphasis 
is  upon  the  teaching;  in  this  narrative  the  teach- 
ing is  secondary  and  is  not  akin  to  anything  we 


172  Matthew'' s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

have  in  the  common  material.  Luke,  we  have 
already  seen,  has  broken  up  the  topical  sequence 
here  and  converted  it  into  a  chronological  one. 
Who  would  be  more  likely  to  introduce  such  a 
narrative  as  this  ?  Moreover,  the  incident  in  this 
connection  has  its  justification  to  Luke  because 
of  what  Jesus  replies  to  Herod  in  13:32,  another 
passage  found  only  in  Luke. 

Luke  13:31-33,  to  which  attention  has  just  been 
called,  is  probably  also  an  addition  of  the  evangelist. 
It  converts  the  merely  topical  relation  of  13:30  to 
13:34  into  a  historical  one.  This  insertion  is  very 
helpful  in  showing  the  purpose  and  method  of 
Luke's  additions.  We  are  also  reminded  that  Luke 
is  the  evangelist  who  seems  particularly  interested 
in  Herod  and  best  informed  concerning  him.' 

Throughout  chaps.  14,  15,  and  16  of  Luke  the 
condemnation  of  the  Pharisees  and  exaltation  of 
the  publicans  and  sinners  is  the  main  theme.  We 
would  therefore  expect  to  find  more  of  his  char- 
acteristic material  here  than  elsewhere.  In  14:1- 
24  Luke  gives  a  series  of  three  parables  preceded 

^  The  saying  of  Jesus  in  this  passage  shows,  however,  that  it  is 
no  composition  of  Luke,  but  comes  from  some  source  or  tradition. 


The  Common  Source  and  Luke  173 

by  a  healing,  all  connected  as  a  scene  at  the  table 
in  the  house  of  a  Pharisee.  The  last,  the  parable  of 
a  Great  Feast,  as  has  already  been  said,  is  so  differ- 
ent in  language  and  development  of  thought  from 
Matthew's  parable  on  the  same  theme  that  a  com- 
mon literary  source  is  improbable/  We  have  no 
other  example  of  such  freedom  in  treating  the 
sayings  of  Q  as  one  must  assume  to  assign  these 
two  accounts  to  that  source.  What  likeness  there 
is,  is  far  more  readily  accounted  for  by  a  common 
tradition;  this  there  must  have  been  if,  as  seems 
true,  the  parable  had  an  authentic  basis.  Another 
resemblance  to  this  insertion  of  Luke  has  been 
found  in  Matt.  12:11,  i2  =  Luke  14:5.  But  the 
fact  that  Luke  has  presented  this  conception  in  two 
different  versions,  13:15  and  14:5,  and  that 
Matthew  is  as  much  like  one  as  the  other,  would 
show  that  it  was  a  widespread  traditional  saying. 
The  probability  remains  that  we  have  here  not 
Q  material  but  an  insertion  of  Luke.  There  is 
also  a  parallel  to  Luke  14:8-11  appended  to 
Matt.  20:28  in  Codd.  D,  0,  Old  Latin,  Vulg.,  and 

*  The  likenesses  and  differences  are  fully  presented  in  Hamack, 
p.  119. 


174  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

Syr.  Cur.  The  MSS  evidence  for  this  addition  is 
about  the  same  as  that  which  we  found  for  i6:2&> 
3,  but  the  passage  is  very  clumsily  appended  and 
it  is  more  doubtful  whether  it  really  belo  ngs  to 
Matthew.  The  resemblance  here  to  Luke  is  like 
that  which  we  have  found  in  Matthew's  parallels 
to  the  rest  of  this  chapter.  The  language  through- 
out is  entirely  different.  There  can  hardly  be  the 
same  literary  source  behind  this  passage  and 
Luke  14:8-11;  so  that  whether  or  not  this  be 
regarded  as  belonging  to  Matthew,  it  only  con- 
firms our  view  that,  in  this  material  connected  with 
a  feast  at  the  house  of  a  Pharisee,  Luke  gives  us  a 
well-known  tradition  and  is  not  using  any  docu- 
ment known  to  Matthew.  The  First  Gospel  shows 
familiarity  with  some  of  this  material  but  in  a 
form  different  from  that  of  Luke. 

The  two  parables  of  Luke  14: 28-33  ^^e  wanting 
in  Matthew.  Their  connection  with  the  preceding 
sayings  is,  as  Jiilicher  says, ''  ausgezeichnet."  That 
Luke  should  have  found  these  two  parables  of  so 
little  suggestiveness  apart  from  their  context  and 
inserted  them  here  shows  far  more  aptness  than  he 
has  elsewhere  displayed  in  his  combinations  of 


The  Common  Source  and  Luke  175 

sayings.  He  has  not  Matthew's  skill  in  such  read- 
justment. Nor  is  it  surprising  that  they  are 
omitted  by  Matthew.  They  are  mere  illustrations, 
adding  nothing  to  the  teaching  of  10:37,  38,  and 
they  would  be  very  unsuitable  for  Matthew's 
already  lengthy  discourse  of  chap.  10.  And  so, 
despite  the  fact  that  we  have  no  literary  resem- 
blances to  which  to  point,  it  is  probable  that  these 
verses  belong  to  Q.  The  section  is  concluded  in 
Luke  by  the  parable  on  Salt.  Jiilicher^  has  given 
good  reasons  for  regarding  14:34,  35  as  the  proper 
conclusion  here,  and  vs.  2>?>  ^s  only  an  editorial 
addition.  Matthew  already  has  his  version  of  this 
parable  in  5:13,  which  is  certainly  secondary, 
whether  or  not  it  is  linguistically  dependent  upon 
this  passage. 

Luke,  chap.  15,  continues  the  condemnation  of 
the  Pharisees  and  emphasizes  God's  concern  for  the 
lost.  That  Matthew  knew  the  parable  of  the 
Prodigal  Son  and  omitted  it  is  almost  impossible 
to  believe.  But,  as  we  have  seen,  the  parable  of  the 
Sheep  seems  to  have  been  appended  to  Q  and  so  is 
found  in  Matthew  also.     The  question  then  arises 

*  Op.  cit.,  p.  70. 


176  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

whether  the  parable  of  the  Lost  Coin,  its  com- 
panion piece,  was  not  there.  One  recognizes  that 
Matthew  could  not  so  readily  adapt  this  to  the 
application  he  has  given  the  preceding  parable. 
It  may  therefore  have  been  in  Q.  There  is  little 
evidence  upon  which  to  decide  either  way. 

The  two  parables  of  Luke,  chap.  16,  are  likewise 
directed  against  the  Pharisees,  and  to  Luke,  at 
least,  they  attach  a  real  moral  value  to  poverty. 
Into  this  independent  material  of  chaps.  15  and  16 
Luke  has  woven  several  sayings  from  that  mis- 
cellaneous group  with  which  Q  probably  closed. 
It  is  interesting  to  compare  and  see  how  much  more 
successful  Matthew  was  in  this  respect.  The  rest 
of  this  group  Luke  simply  adds  at  the  beginning 
of  chap.  17  without  any  attempt  to  correlate  them. 
Is  17:7-10  to  be  included  in  this  group?  It  is 
indeed  possible.  Such  a  parable  Matthew  might 
have  passed  over,  as  he  certainly  did  others  like  it. 
Nor  does  it  contain  any  of  the  characteristics  that 
so  readily  differentiate  special  material  of  Luke. 

Luke  17 :  11-19  is  another  miracle  giving  us  prac- 
tically the  same  geographical  setting  which  we 
had  in  9:515.    These  indications  of  a  Samaritan 


The  Common  Source  and  Luke  177 

ministry  belong  to  the  peculiarities  of  Luke.  He 
has  very  clumsily  woven  the  Q  material  into  the 
background  it  gives,  and  tried  to  adapt  the  whole 
to  the  framework  of  Mark.  In  18:35  Jesus  is  in 
Jericho,  which  implies  that  he  came  south  by  way 
of  the  Jordan  and  Perea,  Mark  10:  i.  Either  Luke 
shows  complete  ignorance  of  the  geography  here  or 
he  understands  all  the  possessions  of  Herod  Antipas, 
including  Perea,  under  the  term  "Galilee."  In 
3:1  Herod  is  called  Tetrarch  of  Galilee.  This 
would  explain  why  Galilee  should  be  mentioned  in 
17:11  after  the  repeated  reference  to  the  journey 
southward. 

In  18:1-14  are  two  parables  inserted  by  Luke. 
The  purpose  of  their  insertion  here  is  to  show 
the  great  need  of  prayer  and  faith  to  hasten  the 
time  of  the  Parousia.  The  second  parable  surely 
had  no  such  significance  originally,  and  neither 
did  the  first  if  we  regard  vss.  1-5  as  giving  its  primi- 
tive form.  The  emphasis  in  vss.  6-8^  upon  the 
demand  for  vengeance  cannot  be  attributed  to 
Luke,  who,  in  vs.  i  and  the  connection  with  the 
following  parable,  shows  that  he  found  its  point 
in    the    persistent    prayer.    The    eschatological 


178  Matthew'' s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

application,  therefore,  must  have  been  already 
added  in  the  source  where  Luke  found  it.  The 
fact  that  the  preceding  section  from  Q  touched 
upon  the  theme  of  the  final  judgment  might 
suggest  that  the  connection  had  already  been  made 
in  Q.  But  17:22  ff.  is  concerned  with  the  coming 
of  Christ  in  judgment.  This  parable  speaks  of  the 
judgment  of  God.  Besides,  the  judgment  is  never 
presented  in  Q  as  a  time  of  vengeance  upon  enemies ; 
it  is  always  referred  to  in  personal  words  of  warning. 
If  this  parable  stood  in  Q  it  was  added  by  a  later 
hand.  What  relations  it  originally  had  to  11:5-8 
can  no  longer  be  determined.  The  application  of 
vss.  6-8a  is  very  old,  Jewish  rather  than  Christian. 
Certainly  there  are  few  who  would  be  willing  to  say 
with  Wellhausen  that  this  is  the  original  of  the 
earlier  parable.  Luke  certainly  did  not  find  it  in 
connection  with  11:5-8.  Either  it  was  an  early 
addition  here  in  Q  or  Luke  has  inserted  it  from 
another  source  for  the  reason  we  gave  in  the  begin- 
ning. The  second  parable  was  probably  added 
by  Luke.  With  18:15  Luke  returns  to  Mark,  whom 
he  follows  thenceforth,  though  he  shows  acquaint- 
ance with  independent  sources.     The  only  pas- 


The  Common  Source  and  Luke  179 

sage  after  this  which  can  with  any  confidence  be 
assigned  to  Q  is  the  parable  of  the  Pounds,  19 :  12  ff . 
Luke  explains  in  19: 11  why  he  has  reserved  it  for 
this  place.  Just  as  Jesus  is  about  to  enter  Jerusa- 
lem gives  him  the  historical  setting  he  desires. 

There  is  a  slight  resemblance  to  Matthew  in 
Luke  22: 306  =  Matt.  19:286  and  a  reference  to  Q 
(Luke  10:4)  in  22:35.  These  are,  however,  of 
very  little  weight;  the  first  resemblance  can  be 
readily  understood  without  the  assumption  of  a 
common  written  source,  and  Luke  would  have  con- 
formed 22:35  to  10:4  or  9:3  if  it  had  been  different 
in  his  source.  For  the  reasons  already  given  we 
would  not  assign  any  of  Luke's  Passion  material 
toQ. 

In  conclusion,  we  now  have  found  good  reason 
for  assigning  10:17-20;  11:5-8;  13:1-9;  14:28-35 
to  Q.  To  this  list  three  other  passages  might  be 
added  as  possibly  belonging  to  Q,  12:35-38;  15:8- 
10;  17:7-10.  Minor  additions  of  Luke  con- 
sidered in  the  detailed  discussions  of  pp.  19- 119 
are  as  follows:  a  few  additions  in  Luke  6:27  ff.; 
7:2ff.  (?);  9:61,62;  12:16,32,49,50;  i3:25(?); 
17: 20,  21,  25,  28-30.     It  was  left  doubtful  whether 


i8o  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

11:34-36,  12:54-56  are  to  be  regarded  as  having  a 
parallel  in  Matthew.  The  evidence  is  not  equally 
strong  for  them  all,  but  they  may  with  some  confi- 
dence be  assigned  to  Q. 

Many  insertions  have  evidently  been  made  into 
the  Q  material  by  Luke.  J.  Weiss  has  long 
championed  the  view  that  these  had  already  been 
added  to  Q  before  Luke  used  it.  We  have  seen 
that  in  a  few  cases  such  a  pre-Lukan  addition 
seemed  possible.  But  if  there  is  anything  which 
may  be  regarded  as  characteristic  of  the  third 
evangelist  himself,  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  manner 
of  insertion  and  standpoint  of  this  additional 
material.  This  is  also  the  conclusion  of  Wernle, 
Die  synoptische  Frage,  pp.  83-88.  Whether  Luke 
had  one  or  more  independent  sources  is  beyond 
the  scope  of  this  discussion.  Some  of  this  Lukan 
material  was  indirectly  known  to  Matthew.  Evi- 
dently in  the  time  of  Luke  and  Matthew  there 
existed  a  body  of  narratives  and  sayings  connected 
with  Jesus  which  had  not  been  incorporated  in 
Mark  or  Q.  We  have  seen  how  there  was  a 
tendency  to  append  such  additional  sayings  to  Q. 
The  fact,  however,  that  the  most  careful  examina- 


The  Common  Source  and  Luke  i8i 

tion  of  all  later  Christian  literature  has  failed  to 
disclose  more  than  a  few  fragmentary  doubtful 
passages  indicates  that  Matthew  and  Luke  have 
given  us  practically  all  of  this  extra  material  then 
accessible.  From  this  point  of  view,  also,  it  is 
improbable  that  either  evangelist  made  such  con- 
siderable omissions  from  his  sources  as  many  have 
supposed. 


CHAPTER  VI 

RELATION  OF  THE  COMMON  SOURCE  TO  THE 
INDEPENDENT  MATERIAL  OF  MATTHEW 

In  our  previous  study  of  Matthew  and  his 
methods  we  saw  that  he  has  either  woven  all  of 
his  non-Markan  material  into  the  narrative  of 
Mark  or  attached  it  to  one  of  his  great  discourses. 
His  method  necessitated  the  frequent  transference 
of  sayings  from  their  original  sequence.  This  has 
made  the  problem  of  sources  in  Matthew  much 
more  difficult.  When  we  have  not  the  pa'rallel 
material  of  Luke  to  guide  us  we  have  nothing  by 
which  to  judge  except  the  content  of  the  saying  or 
narrative  in  question.  However,  the  nature  of 
some  of  Matthew's  independent  material  is  such 
that  we  can  confidently  say  that  it  never  stood  in 
Q.  The  narratives  peculiar  to  Matthew  at  once 
differentiate  themselves  as  somewhat  legendary, 
and  it  is  there  that  the  linguistic  characteristics 
of  Matthew  are  most  manifest.  What  Hawkins^ 
says  of  chaps,  i  and  2  applies  to  all  of  these  narra- 

^  Hor.  Syn.,  pp.  8,  9. 

182 


The  Common  Source  and  Matthew        183 

tives.  It  is  very  probable  that  Matthew  had  no 
written  sources  at  all  for  most  of  them:  chaps,  i,  2; 
3:14,  15;  14:28-31;  17:24-27;  21:14-16;  27:3- 
10,  19,  51&-53,  62-66;  28:2,  3,  9-20.  Surely 
none  of  these  narratives  came  from  Q. 

Some  of  the  additional  material  of  Matthew  is 
merely  editorial;  this  is  certainly  true  of  the  Old 
Testament  quotations,  4: 13-16;  8:17;  12:17-21; 
13 :  14,  15.  Among  the  editorial  additions  may  also 
be  included  those  passages  in  non-Markan  contexts 
in  which  Matthew  has  anticipated  or  repeated 
sayings  and  narratives  from  Mark.^  Matt.  4:23- 
25  =  Mark  3:  i7if.;  Matt.  5:29,  3o  =  Mark  9:43  ff.; 
Matt.  6:14,  15  =  Mark  11:25;  Matt.  9:27-31  = 
Mark  10:46-52;  Matt.  9:35,  36  =  Mark  1:39; 
Matt.  6:34;  io:39-42  =  Mark  8:35;  9:37,  41; 
Matt.  ii:i4  =  Mark  9:11  ff.  Probably  10:17-22 
(23  ?)  is  also  to  be  included  in  this  list,  though 
more  can  be  said  in  this  case  for  the  view  that 
Matthew  is  here  using  some  source  of  Mark. 
Matt.  10:39-42  is  interesting  because  it  is  surely 
an  editorial  addition,  and  not  only  illustrates 
Matthew's    readiness    to    use    Markan    material 

*  This  has  been  fully  discussed,  pp.  58  ff. 


184  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

twice  but  gives  us  something  of  the  editor's  own 
standpoint.  Matthew's  strong  interest  in  the  later 
church,  its  discipline,  and  organization  is  here 
apparent.  It  is  only  natural  to  expect  that  since 
Matthew  has  used  passages  from  Mark  in  this  way, 
he  has  used  some  from  Q  in  like  manner.  Matt. 
9:32-34;  12:33-37  have  been  considered  as  such 
Q  passages  used  by  Matthew  a  second  time  edi- 
torially. The  additions  which  Matthew  has  made 
to  the  Beatitudes,  5:4,  7-9,  may  also  be  merely 
editorial,  but  their  close  relation  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  rabbinic  teaching  is  not  inconsistent  with 
their  being  genuine  words  of  Jesus.  Moreover, 
they  are  not  the  sort  of  passages  Matthew  was 
accustomed  to  quote  from  the  Old  Testament.  It 
is  therefore  more  likely  that  they  had  some  basis 
in  tradition. 

Passages  showing  marked  interest  in  the  organi- 
zation and  discipline  of  the  church  may  also  with 
much  probability  be  assigned  to  the  editor.  It  does 
not  follow  that  he  composed  them ;  more  probably 
they  rest  upon  good  tradition  or  special  sources. 
Among  these  must  be  included  7:15;  13:24-30, 
36-43,  51,  52;    16:17-20;    18:17-20;    19:10-12. 


The  Common  Source  and  Matthew        185 

The  parable  of  the  Dragnet,  13 :  47-50,  seems  to  be 
a  companion  piece  to  the  parable  of  the  Tares, 
and  belongs  to  the  same  source. 

There  is  another  group  of  passages  in  Matthew 
which  give  the  First  Gospel  its  characteristic 
quality.  Their  dominant  interest  is  in  practical 
Christian  morality  and  forms  of  worship.  This 
higher  Christian  righteousness  is  contrasted  with 
that  of  the  Pharisees:  5:17  (18,  19),  20-24,  27,  28, 
33-37';  6:1-8,16-18;  12:5-7,11,12;  23:2,3,76- 
12.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  these  rest  upon 
genuine  words  of  Jesus,  but  they  are  presented  from 
a  characteristically  Matthean  standpoint.  It  can 
be  argued  that  these  passages  were  omitted  from 
Q  by  Luke  because  his  gentile  readers  would  not 
be  interested  in  them.  But  they  are  much  more 
closely  related  to  the  preceding  group  with  its 
strong  church  interest  than  to  Q.  One  needs  only 
to  separate  5 : 1 7  ff .  from  the  material  common  to 
Luke  6 :  20  ff .  to  see  how  far  different  in  interest 
this  material  is  from  Q.  The  woes  of  chap.  23 
which  are  peculiar  to  Matt.  23:15-22,  24  and 
15:12-14  seem  to  be  related  to  this  same  group. 

*  Additions  from  Q  and  Mark  are  evident  in  5 :  18,  25,  26,  29-32. 


i86  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

All  of  these  passages  can  with  some  assurance  be 
denied  a  place  in  Q  and  with  them  may  be  included 
most  of  the  parables  peculiar  to  Matthew.  The 
very  fact  that  Luke  gives  the  parable  of  22 : 1-14  in 
an  independent  form  shows  that  it  did  not  belong  to 
Q.  It  is  also  very  hard  to  believe  that  Luke  would 
have  omitted  21:28-31  had  he  known  it.  He  has 
given  21:32  (Luke  7:29,  30)  in  a  different  form. 
As  25:31-46  stands  in  Matthew  it  can  hardly  have 
belonged  to  Q.  It  is  much  more  closely  related  to 
Matthew's  characteristic  material.  Matt.  25 : 1-13 
seems  also  to  be  a  parable  from  independent  sources 
which  Matthew  has  added  to  the  group  of  Sec.  19. 
It  may  be  that  Luke  was  familiar  with  it  in  some 
variant  form.'  The  possibility  that  18:23-35; 
20:1-16  came  from  Q  cannot  be  denied,  and  yet 
there  is  very  little  reason  for  assigning  them  to  Q 
if  once  it  is  agreed  that  Matthew  had  access  to 
some  valuable  parables  which  were  not  given  by 
Mark  nor  Q. 

More  can  be  said  for  the  parables  of  the  Pearl 
and  the  Hidden  Treasure,  13:44-46,  which  have 
even  impressed  a  critical  scholar  like  Wernle  as 

'  See  p.  98. 


The  Common  Source  and  Matthew        187 

belonging  to  the  common  material  of  Matthew  and 
Luke.  Why  the  latter  should  omit  it  cannot  be 
said;  but  then  we  cannot  expect  to  know  every 
motive  which  prompted  him.  Such  sayings  as 
5:41;  6: 34;  18:10  might  easily  have  been  dropped 
by  Luke;  7:6  (-?);  10:5,  6,  16&  would  naturally 
have  been  omitted  by  him.  Even  the  Matthean 
Beatitudes,  5:4,  7,  8-10,  might  possibly  have  stood 
in  some  other  connection  in  Q,  but  this  is  improb- 
able. Matt.  5:13-16  is  an  editorial  compilation; 
5 :  13  is  a  secondary  form  of  Luke  14:34,  35  (Q),  and 
5:15  of  Mark  4:21.  Matt.  5:14,  which  is  found 
only  here,  Matthew  certainly  found  in  some  source, 
and,  as  Harnack  suggests,  it  may  have  been  Q. 
1 1 :  28-30  is  a  very  puzzling  addition  of  Matthew. 
It  shows  none  of  the  special  characteristics  of  that 
evangelist.  The  only  reasons  for  denying  that  it 
stood  in  Q  are  the  position  which  it  has,  displacing 
a  saying  that  must  have  belonged  in  Q,  and  the 
difficulty  of  imagining  why  Luke  should  leave  it  out. 
In  conclusion,  the  following  sayings  may  be 
given  a  place  in  Q  with  more  or  less  probability: 
5:14,41;  6:34;  7:6(?);  10:5,6,166;  13:44-46; 
18 :  10.    Whether  6 :  22,  23 ;  10 :  24,  25  have  parallels 


i88  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

in  Luke  was  left  doubtful,  so  that  may  also  be 
included  here.  Some  of  the  other  parables  and 
such  sayings  as  5:4,  7,  8-10;  11:28-30  could  pos- 
sibly have  stood  in  Q,  but  it  remains  improbable. 
We  ought  also  to  notice  how  relatively  small  is 
the  amount  of  valuable  information  which  Matthew 
possessed  outside  of  Mark  and  Q.  These  are  his 
two  great  sources.  Although  the  First  Gospel 
contains  other  important  material,  it  is  the  Third 
Gospel  which  contains  the  richest  body  of  inde- 
pendent narrative  and  teachings. 

The  total  number  of  verses  from  the  independent 
material  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  which  can  with 
any  confidence  be  assigned  to  Q,  does  not  amount 
to  more  than  fifty.  The  omissions  of  Matthew 
bulk  much  larger  than  those  of  Luke,  but  they  are 
mostly  illustrative  in  character  and  add  but  little 
to  the  teaching.  There  is  a  possibility  that  other 
sayings  and  parables  also  belonged  to  Q,  but  in 
view  of  the  considerations  suggested  at  the  begin- 
ning we  do  not  consider  that  they  were  many. 


CHAPTER  VII 
RELATION  OF  THE  COMMON  SOURCE  TO  MARK 

One  other  relationship  demands  consideration. 
Bernhard  Weiss,  followed  by  his  son,  Johannes 
Weiss,  and  by  B.  W.  Bacon  in  a  somewhat  different 
form,  argues  that  Mark  was  familiar  with  Q  and 
dependent  upon  it.  Thus  these  scholars  would 
account  for  coincident  variations  of  Matthew  and 
Luke  in  Markan  material.  On  the  other  hand, 
Wellhausen  has  argued  for  the  dependence  of  Q 
upon  Mark,  and  jUlicher  has  agreed  with  him  in  so 
far  as  to  say  that  in  the  form  which  Matthew  and 
Luke  knew  Q  it  had  been  influenced  by  Mark.  Har- 
nack  in  his  treatise  on  this  subject  has  cogently 
argued  against  the  position  of  Wellhausen  and 
allows  only  the  possibility  of  an  ''indirect"^  rela- 
tionship between  Mark  and  Q.  It  is  with  the  first 
of  these  positions  that  we  are  immediately  con- 
cerned, for  these  scholars  maintain  not  only  that 
Mark  knew  Q  but  that  much  of  the  narrative  mate- 
rial of  Mark  was  taken  originally  from  Q.     The 

*  See  p.  226. 

189 


igo  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

reconstruction  of  Q  which  has  here  been  presented 
leaves  no  place  for  such  an  expansion  into  an  Ure- 
vangelium.  Fortunately  there  are  some  passages 
that  are  found  in  both  Mark  and  Q.  Let  us 
examine  these  points  of  contact  to  see  what  sort  of 
a  relationship  they  presuppose. 

Both  Mark  and  Q  began  with  John  the  Baptist 
and  his  preaching.  Part  of  the  account  which  Q 
gave  was  paralleled  in  Mark,  Mark  1:7,  8  =  Matt. 
3:ii=Luke  3:16.  The  context  in  Q  makes  it 
certain  that  Matthew  and  Luke  have  not  simply 
added  this  verse  from  Mark.  It  stood  in  some  form 
in  Q  also.  One  sentence  of  Luke  is  practically  the 
same  as  that  of  Mark,  but  Matthew  remains  more 
independent  of  Mark.  Since  we  know  that  both 
Matthew  and  Luke  had  access  to  Mark,  they  have 
in  all  probability  been  influenced  by  him,  for  it  is 
just  in  this  verse  that  their  verbal  agreement 
throughout  this  section  is  broken.  Hence  at  this 
point  it  is  unnecessary  to  postulate  a  literary  rela- 
tionship between  Mark  and  Q.  The  tendency  to 
harmonization  is  likewise  to  be  reckoned  with. 
This  very  verse  of  Mark  is  conformed  more  com- 
pletely to  Matthew  and  Luke  in  the  D,  a,  ff.  texts. 


The  Common  Source  and  Mark  191 

There  must  have  been  a  close  similarity  in  thought, 
but  we  must  remember  that  this  is  the  one  message 
of  the  Baptist  which  would  deeply  concern  all 
Christians  from  the  beginning.  If,  as  seems 
probable,  "by  the  Holy  Spirit  and  by  fire"  in 
Matthew  and  Luke  is  a  conflation  of  Mark  and  Q, 
then  there  was  this  one  considerable  difference 
in  thought.  Those  who  make  Mark  dependent 
on  Q  regard  it  as  an  editorial  change  of  Mark,  but 
Mark  need  not  have  taken  it  from  Q  at  all.  No 
•immediate  relation  between  Mark  and  Q  can  be 
based  on  this  passage. 

Both  Mark  and  Q  also  contained  an  account  of 
the  baptism  and  temptation  of  Jesus.  What  Q 
gave  about  the  baptism  can  no  longer  be  deter- 
mined, so  that  nothing  more  about  the  resemblance 
here  can  be  said  except  that  both  must  have  con- 
tained some  mention  of  the  baptism  and  baptismal 
vision.  The  account  of  the  temptation  in  Mark 
implies  a  knowledge  of  more  than  is  told.  Does  it 
imply  a  knowledge  of  Q  ?  This  is  affirmed  by  B .  W. 
Bacon,'  who  says  that  the  beasts  of  Mark  i :  13 
are  taken  from  Ps.  91 :  13,  the  same  psalm  which  is 

^  Beginnings  oj  the  Gospel  Story ^  p.  7. 


192  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

quoted  in  Matt.  4:6.  But  when  we  remember  that 
this  particular  verse  of  the  psalm  was  not  given  by 
Q  and  it  is  nowhere  even  implied  in  the  Q  account 
that  Jesus  was  with  wild  beasts  nor  comforted  by 
angels,'  it  is  hard  to  see  how  this  can  be  used  as  evi- 
dence of  dependence  on  Q.  In  fact  nowhere  is  the 
radical  difference  of  the  two  accounts  more  mani- 
fest than  just  here.  The  ministering  of  angels  is  a 
temptation  in  Q  (Matt.  4:6;  Luke  4: 10,  11)  which 
Jesus  repels;  in  Mark  it  is  apparently  the  indica- 
tion of  his  conquest.  Surely  Q's  account  did  not 
lie  before  Mark,  but,  as  we  have  said,  some  other 
detailed  version  probably  did,  and  we  may  con- 
jecture that  Psalm  91  had  a  larger  place  in  it. 
It  is  to  be  granted  that  Q's  account  of  this,  hke  his 
account  of  the  preaching  of  John  the  Baptist, 
is  more  primitive  and  historical  than  that  of 
Mark. 

A  more  forceful  argument  for  some  relationship 
between  Mark  and  Q  can  be  found  in  the  fact 
that  both  take  up  these  same  topics  in  the  same 

^  Matt.  4:106  is  a  conflation. 

'  The  writer  sees  no  reason  to  deny  that  the  Q  account  of  the 
temptation  rests  on  a  genuine  word  of  Jesus. 


The  Common  Source  and  Mark  193 

sequence  in  their  introductions.  But,  as  Harnack 
has  suggested,  there  is  a  strong  probability  that  this 
starting-point  was  fixed  in  early  catechetical  tradi- 
tion, Acts  1:22  and  Luke  1:4.  If  this  likeness  in 
order  continued  it  would  be  significant,  but,  being 
found  only  at  the  beginning  in  material  which  is 
really  a  unit,  such  great  weight  cannot  be  given  it. 
That  both  Matthew  and  Luke  insert  the  Q  material 
in  the  same  place  in  Mark  gives  no  additional  value 
to  the  argument.  They  would  naturally  do  so  under 
the  circumstances,  independently  of  each  other. 
In  the  setting  Matthew  and  Luke  give  Sec.  3  there 
is  also  some  similarity.  Both  use  Mark  3 : 7  ff . 
but  in  such  different  ways  as  to  show  that  it  is  not 
due  to  their  having  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
already  combined  with  narrative  material  of  Mark 
nor  to  dependence  on  each  other. ^  Such  an 
explanation  would  create  more  difficulties  than  it 
could  solve.  In  Q  the  discourse  was  directed  to 
the  disciples  and  possibly  its  introduction  had 
some  reference  to  the  hill  country.  Matthew  used 
Mark  3 : 7  ff .  merely  to  bring  before  the  reader 
the  multitudes  who  then  listened  to  Jesus,  and  he 

^  This  judgment  is  confirmed  by  Allen,  Com.,  p.  70. 


194      '        Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

placed  the  discourse  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Galilean  ministry  as  the  setting  forth  of  the  new 
law.  Luke  on  the  other  hand  takes  the  whole 
situation  of  Mark  3 : 7  ff .  and  introduces  the  dis- 
course at  that  point.  In  no  case  after  this  do 
Matthew  and  Luke  connect  Q  material  with  the 
same  Markan  context,  a  very  significant  fact. 

In  the  content  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
the  following  parallel  to  Mark  occurs,  Matt.  7:2^  = 
Mark  4 :  24,  but  surely  a  similarity  in  such  a  short, 
proverbial  saying  as  this  has  little,  if  any,  impor- 
tance. There  can  be  no  question  of  any  depend- 
ence of  Mark  upon  Q  in  this  whole  discourse,  nor, 
on  the  other  hand,  can  the  authenticity  of  the  say- 
ings here  attributed  to  Jesus  be  reasonably  ques- 
tioned. Mark's  summary  of  Jesus'  teaching,  1:15, 
seems  to  be  merely  editorial.  B.  W.  Bacon  has 
also  argued  that  the  description  of  John  the  Baptist 
in  Sec.  5  underlies  the  account  of  Mark  i :  i  ff . 
Mark  certainly  implies  that  he  knows  more  about 
the  Baptist  than  he  tells,  and  what  he  knows  is 
consistent  with  what  Q  gives  in  Sec.  5,  but  this  is 
all  that  can  be  said.  Mark  1:2  B.  W.  Bacon 
understands  to  be  added  here  from  Luke  7:27,  and 


The  Common  Source  and  Mark  195 

he  would  explain  the  coincident  omission  of 
Matthew  and  Luke  here  as  due  to  their  use  of  Q, 
Mark's  source.  But  the  common  explanation  of 
this,  as  a  scribal  addition,  is  a  very  natural  one. 
Of  coincident  variations  in  general  we  shall  have 
more  to  say  later. 

Nowhere  is  the  relation  between  Mark  and  Q 
closer  than  in  the  sending  forth  of  the  disciples, 
Mark  6:66-11;  Luke  10:1-12,  Sec.  7.  The 
directions  given  to  the  disciples  in  the  two  accounts 
are  in  practical  agreement.  The  Q  account  is 
fuller,  but  including  all  that  is  found  in  Mark. 
Mark's  version  seems  condensed;  here  also  he 
probably  knew  more  than  he  told.  The  exception 
made  of  the  staff  in  Mark  6:8  appears  to  be 
secondary,  and  Harnack^  has  completely  refuted 
Wellhausen's  argument  that  Q  is  dependent  on 
Mark  in  this  section.  The  priority  belongs  to  Q 
throughout.  But  this  does  not  estabhsh  Mark's 
use  of  Q.  We  have  no  right  to  deny  that  Jesus 
sent  forth  his  disciples,  as  both  of  these  sources 
maintain.  The  character  of  the  instructions  shows 
their  primitiveness,  and  we  must  allow  some  place 

*  See  pp.  212  ff. 


196  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

for  the  period  of  oral  tradition.  A  basis  in  fact 
and  common  oral  tradition  is  the  natural,  simple, 
and  amply  sufficient  explanation  of  the  two 
accounts  here. 

In  Sec.  8  there  is  one  verse  which  might  be 
regarded  as  having  a  parallel  in  Mark,  Luke  10: 16 
=  Mark  9:37.  Here  again  the  eirl  rco  ovbiiaTi  ixov 
of  Mark  9:37  favors  the  priority  of  Q,  but  depend- 
ence of  Mark  upon  Q  is  very  improbable.  It  is 
hard  to  see  how  two  accounts  of  a  common  tradition 
could  be  more  different,  if  indeed  we  have  here  a 
common  tradition. 

The  petition  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  ^'Forgive  us 
our  debts  as  we  forgive  our  debtors,"  Matt.  6:12, 
Sec.  12,  is  reflected  in  Mark  11:25,  but,  whatever 
Mark's  relation  to  Q  may  have  been  there,  there  is 
every  probability  that  he  was  familiar  with  this 
prayer.*  The  distinctive  characteristic  of  this 
petition  in  Q  is  the  use  of  o^etXiJjuara  and  60€t- 
XeVat;  these,  however,  do  not  appear  in  Mark. 

The  only  other  extended  likeness  between  Mark 
and  Q  besides  the  one  of  Sec.  7  is  that  which  we 

•  Wellhausen's  arguments  for  denying  that  this  prayer  is  a 
genuine  word  of  Jesus  are  arbitrary. 


The  Common  Source  and  Mark  197 

find  in  Sec.  13.  But  here  any  dependence  of  the 
one  account  on  the  other  is  impossible;  the  differ- 
ences are  too  fundamental.  The  charge  itself  is 
not  the  same  in  both  accounts.  In  Mark,  Jesus  is 
accused  of  being  a  demoniac,  possessed  with  Beelze- 
bul;  in  Q  it  is  only  said  that  he  drives  out  demons 
by  the  power  of  Beelzebul.  The  first  argument  of 
Jesus  in  reply  is  substantially  the  same  in  both,  but 
the  method  of  presentation  is  very  different.  The 
second  argument  of  Q  is  not  found  in  Mark.  The 
third  argument  is  much  changed  in  Mark.  Q's  pres- 
entation makes  laxvporepos  avrov,  God.  The  King- 
dom of  God  is  contrasted  with  that  of  Beelzebul. 
In  Mark,  as  we  should  expect  from  the  form  of  the 
charge  in  3:22,  it  is  Christ  who  is  opposed  to 
Beelzebul.  Q  here,  as  usual,  deserves  the  priority, 
but  is  it  not  more  probable  that  the  difference  arose 
in  the  early  tradition  than  that  Mark  used  the 
account  of  Q  and  changed  it?^  Q  concluded  its 
account  here  with  the  parable  of  the  Seven  Other 
Spirits;  Mark  with  the  saying  about  the  unforgiv- 
able sin.     This  Markan  saying,  3:28-30,  has  its 

^  Harnack  is  correct  in  saying  that  Luke  11:23  and  Mark  9 :  40 
have  no  relation  to  each  other.     See  p.  221. 


igS  Matthew* s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

parallel  in  Luke  12 :  lo,  Q.  The  difference  between 
the  two  accounts  here  (Mark  has  "sons  of  men'* 
and  Q  has  the  "Son  of  Man")  is  easier  to  under- 
stand on  the  basis  of  a  common  Aramaic  text  or 
tradition.  There  is  no  possible  reason  for  thinking 
that  Mark  is  dependent  on  the  Greek  Q.  Further- 
more, there  can  be  little  question  that  where  the 
difference  is  so  great  as  it  is  here,  the  use  of  a  com- 
mon tradition  is  more  probable  than  any  mere 
translation  change.  If  now  this  section  as  a  whole 
is  considered,  the  impression  that  Mark  and  Q 
are  two  independent  embodiments  of  early  apos- 
tolic tradition  grows  into  a  conviction. 

The  demand  for  a  sign,  Sec.  15,  which  was  surely 
made  more  than  once  in  the  life  of  Jesus,  is  also 
mentioned  in  Mark  8:11-13.  The  accounts  are 
entirely  independent;  each  preserves  authentic 
features  omitted  by  the  other.' 

In  Sec.  16,  Luke  11:43  is  a  close  parallel  to 
Mark  12:386,  39a.  If,  as  most  scholars  hold,  this 
is  merely  borrowed  from  Mark  by  both  Matthew 
and  Luke,  then  it  would  not  belong  to  Q  at  all. 

^  There  is  little  reason  to  believe  that  Luke  1 1 :  33  stood  in  Q 
at  all.    See  p.  66. 


The  Common  Source  and  Mark  199 

But  the  coincident  variation,  occurring  in  the  way 
it  does,  makes  it  more  probable  that  the  verse 
stood  in  Q  also.  This  is  not  surprising;  we 
should  expect  some  point  of  contact  in  two  inde- 
pendent accounts  of  Jesus'  condemnation  of  the 
Pharisees. 

In  Sec.  17,  Luke  12:16  resembles  Mark  8:15. 
Whether  this  verse  stood  in  Q  is  very  doubtful,' 
but  there  is  a  possibility  that  it  did,  and  it  should 
be  included  in  the  list  of  points  of  contact.  There  is 
also  an  interesting  likeness  between  Luke  12:3  = 
Matt.  10:27  and  Mark  4:22,  but  here  the  differ- 
ence in  form  is  marked.  Another  point  of  contact 
here  is  found  in  Luke  12:8,  9  =  Mark  8:38a,  and 
yet  how  different  they  are!  The  likeness  between 
Luke  12:11,  12  and  Mark  13:11  is  closer. 

Jiilicher^  has  called  attention  to  the  relation  of 
Luke  12:35-38,  Sec.  19,  to  Mark  13:33-37.  He 
wishes  especially  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  Luke 
here  is  not  dependent  upon  Mark,  but  he  also  says 
of  Mark,  "dass  er  gerade  unsern  Matthaus  und 
unsern  Lukas  benutzt  hatte  ist  nicht  erweislich." 
Q  does  deserve  the  priority  here,  as  we  have  seen 

*  See  above,  p.  81.  ^  Op.  cit.,  pp.  169  f. 


200  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

to  be  regularly  the  case,  but  no  literary  relation- 
ship can  be  maintained. 

The  cursing  of  the  fig  tree,  Mark  ii:  12-14,  has 
often  been  considered  as  a  later  development  of  the 
parable  of  the  Fig  Tree,  Luke  13:6-9,  Sec.  23. 
This  is  very  possible,  but  are  we  to  suppose  that 
Mark  with  this  parable  before  him  deliberately 
changed  it  into  the  miracle  of  1 1 : 1 2  if .  ?  Surely 
no  such  theory  can  command  any  wide  acceptance 
today.  The  trustworthiness  of  the  evangelists  has 
been  too  firmly  established.  Anyone  who  will 
agree  with  us  that  this  section  belongs  to  Q  must 
grant  that  here,  at  least,  they  are  independent  of 
each  other.  Whatever  relation  there  may  be 
between  the  parable  of  Luke  and  the  miracle  of 
Mark  belongs  to  the  period  of  oral  tradition. 

The  parable  of  the  Mustard  Seed  is  given  by 
both  Q,  Sec.  24,  and  Mark  4 :  30-32.  Mark  empha- 
sizes its  being  the  smallest  of  seeds.  Q  speaks  of 
its  becoming  a  tree  and  of  the  birds  resting  on  its 
branches.  The  expression  rd  Trereiva  tov  ovpavov 
is  only  found  here  in  Mark.  This  is  the  only 
parable  where  the  likeness  between  the  two  sources 
is  noticeable,  and  here  we  find  nothing  convincing. 


The  Common  Source  and  Mark  201 

It  is  probable  that  if  Mark  had  known  Q  he  would 
have  retained  the  reference  to  the  tree  just  as 
Matthew  did.  On  the  other  hand,  Q  would  cer- 
tainly have  mentioned  the  small  size  of  the  mustard 
seed  if  he  had  had  Mark  before  him. 

In  Sec.  27,  if  we  accept  the  parables  here  of  Luke 
as  belonging  to  Q,  Luke  14:34,  35  is  the  same 
saying  which  we  find  in  Mark  9:49,  50.  The 
application  of  the  saying  in  Q  is  more  appropriate 
and  more  likely  to  be  original  than  that  of  Mark, 
but  this  is  all  that  can  be  said.  Another  saying 
here  which  both  give  is  Luke  14 127  =  Mark  8:34. 
The  likeness  in  this  case  is  close. 

The  saying  about  marriage  in  Sec.  28  is  given 
a  suitable  setting  in  Mark  but  is  isolated  in  Q. 
In  our  discussion  of  this  saying  we  followed  the 
suggestion  of'  Harnack  and  accepted  the  form  of 
Matthew,  omitting  the  clause,  "saving  for  the 
cause  of  fornication,"  as  that  which  originally 
stood  in  Q.  Harnack^  has  argued  that  this  form 
is  preferable  to  that  of  Mark.  He  considers  that 
the  connection  between  Mark  10: 1-9  and  10: 10-12 
is  only  literary.     Mark  10:10  does  indeed  seem  to 

^  See  p.  199. 


202  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

be  a  very  mechanical  connecting  link,  but  between 
the  two  forms  of  the  saying  it  is  hard  to  decide; 
either  might  be  original.  The  thought  is  prac- 
tically the  same.  Both  Q  and  Mark  9:42  also  have 
a  saying  of  Jesus  on  giving  offense;  the  thought 
is  again  the  same  but  the  expression  so  different 
that  Matthew  can  place  the  two  side  by  side, 
Matt.  18:6,  7.  There  is  another  similarity  in 
idea  between  Luke  17:5,  6  and  Mark  11:23,  but 
here  the  differences  far  outweigh  any  likeness. 

The  eschatological  passage  of  Q,  Sec.  29,  forms 
a  striking  contrast  to  that  of  Mark;  the  whole 
standpoint  is  entirely  different.  An  answer  to  the 
question,  when  the  Son  of  Man  is  to  come,  is 
refused  in  Q,  but  in  Mark  it  is  answered  in  full 
apocalyptic  detail.  J.  Weiss'  has  argued  that 
Mark  13: 14-20  is  dependent  upon  Luke  17:31-32. 
His  principal  reason  is  that  the  whole  tenor  of  Mark, 
chap.  13,  implies  a  world-catastrophe  indeed;  in 
13 :  24  ff .  it  is  necessary  so  to  regard  it.  However, 
it  is  a  commonplace  of  all  apocalyptic  literature  to 
confuse  the  national  with  the  cosmological  stand- 
point, and  that  is  the  true  explanation  of  Mark 

I  Das  dlteste  Evangelium,  in  loc. 


The  Common  Source  and  Mark  203 

here.  His  sources  cannot  be  determined  by  such 
discrepancies.  This  saying  is  an  integral  part  of 
Mark's  apocalyptic  description  and  that  descrip- 
tion is  not  based  on  Q.  Besides,  these  very  verses 
of  Luke  may  not  have  stood  in  Q;  we  have  con- 
sidered them  as  a  later  addition.^  So  17:33  also 
we  are  inclined  to  regard  as  a  later  insertion.  The 
connection  in  which  Matt.  10:39  gives  this  same 
verse  inclines  one  strongly  to  think  he  simply 
borrows  it  from  Mark.  Matt.  10:38  stood  in 
both  Q  and  Mark.  In  its  Markan  context  it  is 
followed  by  the  verse  in  question.  Its  introduc- 
tion by  Matthew  at  this  point  is  thus  readily 
explained.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  in 
the  following  verses  Matthew  is  certainly  following 
Mark;  10:40  is  based  on  Mark  9:37,  and  10:41,42 
is  a  practical- application  of  Mark  9:41.  We  can- 
not be  so  sure  that  Luke  is  simply  quoting  Mark, 
but  the  probability  is  strong.  However,  one 
might  grant  that  this  stood  in  Q  and  include  it 
among  the  common  sayings. 

There  is  one  more  of  these  short  sayings  which  is 
found  in  both  sources,  Matt.  25:29,  Sec.  30,  and 

'  See  pp.  109  ff. 


204  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

Mark  4 :  25.  It  is  very  appropriate  where  it  stands 
in  Q  but  is  in  a  miscellaneous  collection  in  Mark. 
This,  however,  does  not  show  that  he  found  it  in  Q. 
Of  the  twenty-six  points  of  contact  between  Q 
and  Mark,  nineteen  are  short  proverbial  sayings, 
practically  independent  in  themselves;  material 
upon  which  it  is  most  difficult  to  base  any  argu- 
ment for  a  common  source.  Besides,  of  these  one 
is  generally  regarded  as  a  gloss,  Mark  1:2;  two 
others  probably  did  not  stand  in  Q,  Mark  4:21  and 
8:35.  The  differences  in  seven  cases  are  very 
marked:  9:37;  3:28-30;  4:22;  2>:2,^a;  9:42;  10:11, 
12;  1 1 :  23.  This  leaves  only  nine  instances  in  which 
there  is  a  likeness  of  form  as  well  as  any  similarity 
of  thought.  But  to  these  nine  ought  to  be  added 
the  parable  of  the  Mustard  Seed.  We  found  also 
that  in  three  cases  where  there  is  a  connection  in 
thought,  a  comparison  of  the  two  accounts  shows 
that  Mark  must  be  using  another  source,  1:12,  13; 
3:22  ff.;  11:12-14.  We  also  noticed  how  radically 
different  are  the  two  sources  in  Mark,  chap.  13, 
and  Luke,  chap.  17.  If  Mark  knew  these  four 
sections  of  Q  in  an  independent  form,  it  is  probable 
that  he  did  other  portions  of  Q  also.    And  one 


The  Common  Source  and  Mark  205 

cannot  help  wondering  how  Mark  ever  came  to 
omit  the  miraculous  healing  of  the  centurion's 
servant  if  he  was  familiar  with  Q.  We  can  readily 
see  why  he  should  omit  teachings,  but  not  why  he 
should  leave  out  such  a  miracle.  Surely  no  argu- 
ment for  a  dependence  of  Mark  upon  Q  can  be 
based  upon  any  resemblances,  which  may  be 
traced,  of  Mark  to  the  other  common  material  of 
Matthew  and  Luke.  It  has  been  a  common  prac- 
tice to  assign  to  Q  passages  in  Matthew  which 
are  duplicates  of  Markan  sayings,  such  as  Matt.  5 : 
29,  30,  but,  as  we  have  seen,  duplicates  in  Matthew 
do  not  necessarily  mean  that  he  has  access  to  two 
sources,  and  certainly  no  argument  for  a  depend- 
ence of  Mark  on  Q  can  be  based  upon  them. 

However,  those  who  have  maintained  such 
dependence  have  not  argued  from  the  standpoint 
of  Q  but  from  that  of  Mark.  The  theory  has  its 
main  support  in  the  problems  connected  with  the 
use  which  Matthew  and  Luke  make  of  Mark, 
and  especially  their  coincident  agreements  against 
Mark.  In  fact  only  this  last  consideration  can 
possibly  concern  us,  for  Q  is  a  source  common  to 
Matthew  and  Luke,  and  only  evidence  which  may 


2o6  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

point  to  such  a  common  source  has  weight.  Both 
Hawkins  and  Wernle,  two  most  careful  investi- 
gators, have  explained  these  variations  on  other 
grounds.  Allen  in  his  recent  commentary  on 
Matthew  sums  up  the  probable  explanations  as 
being:  (i)  independent  revision  by  Matthew  and 
Luke  along  the  same  lines,  causing  many  agree- 
ments against  Mark;  (2)  textual  correction  of 
Mark;  (3)  harmonistic  revision  of  Matthew  and 
Luke;  (4)  Luke's  use  of  Matthew.  This  last 
explanation  hardly  deserves  any  answer  after  the 
comprehensive  reply  of  Wernle.'  Allen  would  do 
far  better  to  expand  his  second  line  of  argument  and 
recognize  that  the  textual  corrections  of  Mark  in 
the  first  century  would  be  very  different  from  those 
which  we  can  trace  through  the  existing  manu- 
scripts. They  probably  included  the  omission  or 
correction  of  some  Semiticisms,  and  may  well 
explain  the  apparent  priority  of  Matthew  in  such 
passages  as  the  account  of  the  Syrophoenician 
woman.  Later  change  in  Mark,  combined  with 
the  other  lines  of  argument,  seems  to  us  in  every 
way  the  most  satisfactory  explanation  of  the 
phenomena  that   confront   us  in  the   use  which 

*  Op.  cit.,  pp.  4S-6i. 


The  Common  Source  and  Mark  207 

Matthew  and  Luke  make  of  Mark.  It  is  more 
in  accord  with  the  incidental  character  of  the 
common  variations  which  are  so  well  distributed 
over  the  whole  Gospel.  We  therefore  hold  that 
Mark  did  not  use  Q,  though  such  an  *' indirect '^ 
relation  as  that  of  which  Harnack  speaks  is  possible. 
But  there  is  not  need  of  assuming  even  such  a 
relation  as  that,  if  one  grants  that  there  really  was 
a  reliable  oral  tradition  in  the  apostolic  church 
from  which  both  sources  drew.  This  will  account 
for  all  the  phenomena  of  their  relationship.  When 
once  the  position  is  accepted  that  Mark  was  not 
dependent  on  Q,  then  the  main  support  for  any 
attempt  to  assign  to  Q  portions  of  the  Markan 
material  is  gone.  It  is  true  that,  as  we  have  sup- 
posed in  the  case  of  the  account  of  the  baptismal 
vision,  both  Matthew  and  Luke  might  in  other 
cases  prefer  the  form  of  Mark  to  that  of  Q,  and  so 
omit  Q.  But,  as  Wernle  points  out,  so  different 
is  the  character  of  the  two  sources  that  there  is 
little,  if  anything,  which  with  any  probability 
could  be  assigned  to  Q,  and  for  want  of  more  posi- 
tive evidence  it  is  surely  safer  to  hold  to  the  Q, 
about  which  we  know. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  APOSTOLIC  ORIGIN  OF  THE  COMMON 
SOURCE 

Can  the  source  Q  have  come  from  one  of  the 
twelve  disciples  ?  Is  there  anything  in  this  pres- 
entation of  the  person  of  Jesus  or  of  his  teaching 
which  makes  it  historically  impossible  to  assign  it 
to  such  an  author?  As  we  have  reconstructed 
this  source,  in  content  it  is  not  essentially  different 
from  that  which  is  presented  by  Harnack,  and  with 
the  estimate^  that  he  has  placed  upon  this  material 
we  find  ourselves  in  practical  agreement. 

Q  is  a  collection  of  sayings,  written  originally 

in  Aramaic.     These  sayings  are  adapted  to  the 

needs  of  the  early  Palestinian  church.     The  source 

Q  was  written  before,  but  probably  not  long  before, 

Mark.    As  Harnack  has  said,  the  independence  of 

Mark  from  Q  is  against  such  a  supposition.     The 

accommodation  in   Q   of  Jesus'  teaching  to  the 

needs  of  the  early  church  is  primarily  a  matter 

of  arrangement  and  selection.     No  "tendencies" 

*  See  pp.  246  S. 

208 


Apostolic  Origin  of  Common  Source       209 

can  be  observed.  The  author  is  very  conserva- 
tive in  his  treatment  of  this  body  of  tradition. 

The  conception  of  the  person  of  Jesus  here  is  the 
same  which  we  find  in  the  speech  of  Peter,  Acts  2 : 
14-36.  The  great  questions  which  we  associate 
with  Paul  are  not  raised.  Jesus  is  the  Messiah. 
The  author  prefaces  a  historical  introduction  to 
make  this  clear.  Jesus  is  more  than  a  prophet; 
John  was  the  last  of  the  prophets.  As  the  Messiah, 
the  Son,  Jesus  has  brought  the  disciples  a  new 
revelation  of  God.  Jesus  is  presented  as  the  Mes- 
siah already  in  his  earthly  life,  but  his  Kingship  in 
its  power  and  glory  is  to  be  revealed  hereafter. 
Just  so  the  kingdom  is  a  hidden  force  now,  to  be 
seen  in  its  glory  later.^ 

Nothing  is  more  striking  in  this  source  than  the 
way  in  which  -the  kingdom  and  future  coming  are 
stripped  of  their  apocalyptical  features  and  made 
ethical  in  their  bearing.  The  future  coming  is 
primarily  a  call  to  repentance.     All  interrogations^ 

*  See  Luke  7:28;   11:20;   13:18-21;   13:29, 

'This  generation  and  its  leaders  are  condemned  in  forceful 
terms,  but  not  as  enemies;  behind  these  condemnations  is  the 
earnest,  sympathetic  note,  calling  upon  them  to  repent  while 
there  is  time. 


210  Matthew* s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

as  to  the  when  and  where  are  repelled.  The 
kingdom  itself  is  a  "Gabe"  rather  than  an  "Auf- 
gabe, "  but  the  two  cannot  be  separated.  The 
task  which  is  laid  upon  the  disciples  has  likeness 
to  the  Father  as  its  aim — this  is  the  solid  rock 
upon  which  to  build.  Jesus  gives  them  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  Father  that  makes  this  possible.  But 
what  is  the  kingdom  ?  It  is  the  heavenly  treasure/ 
it  is  the  entrance  into  the  joy  of  their  Lord.^  As 
Kaftan  has  said,  defining  "kingdom"  in  the 
teaching  of  Jesus,  "  Gerichtigkeit  ist  ein  Ubung  in 
Gott,  und  das  Segen,  das  Reich,  ist  in  dem  Leben  in 
Gott."  There  is  an  inner  relationship  here  which 
is  fundamental.  In  regard  to  the  ethical  standards 
here  presented,  we  can  do  no  better  than  to  quote 
the  words  of  Harnack:  "Taken  as  a  whole,  we 
have  here  our  Lord's  own  rule  of  life  and  all  his 
promises — a  summary  of  genuine  ordinances  trans- 
forming the  life  such  as  is  not  to  be  found  elsewhere 
in  the  Gospel." 

The  Gentiles  are  recognized  in  Q.  Great  im- 
portance is  given  to  Jesus'  approval  of  the  cen- 
turion's faith.     But  the  standpoint  of  Q  is  readily 

»  See  Matt.  6: 19-21.  *  See  Matt.  25: 21,  23. 


Apostolic  Origin  of  Common  Source       211 

observed  when,  after  the  words  "From  the  East 
and  the  West  they  shall  come  and  sit  at  the 
table  with  Abraham  and  Isaac  and  Jacob  in  the 
Kingdom  of  God,"  it  puts  the  lament  over  Jerusa- 
lem, forsaken  of  God.  It  was  to  the  "lost  sheep  of 
the  house  of  Israel"  that  Jesus  came.  Yet  here 
again  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  this  was 
also  the  position  of  Jesus  himself.  The  kingdom 
is  open  to  all,  but  the  human  interest  is  in  the 
Israelite. 

Great  stress  is  laid  in  Q  upon  the  severe  demands 
Jesus  makes  of  his  disciples.  They  are  to  be  perse- 
cuted and  tried;  they  are  warned  not  to  be  afraid 
of  those  who  can  only  kill  the  body.  Home  ties  are 
to  be  broken;  they  must  bear  the  cross  of  Christ. 
Everyone  must  count  the  cost.  Over  against  these 
things  it  is  not  an  earthly  but  a  heavenly  hope 
which  is  offered.  Possibly  the  emphasis  here  may 
be  due  to  conditions  in  the  time  of  the  author, 
but  the  supporting  testimony  of  Mark  shows 
that  these  teachings  had  a  large  place  in  the  life 
of  Jesus. 

If  this  is  a  fair  presentation  of  the  position  taken 
by  the  source  Q,  does  it  not  support  the  claim  of  a 


212  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

primitive,  apostolic  origin  for  this  source  ?  Har- 
nack  is  very  careful  in  his  statement;  he  says: 

There  is  a  strong  balance  of  probability  that  Q  is  a  work 
of  St.  Matthew;  but  more  cannot  be  said.  It  is  useless  to 
discuss  the  historical  and  psychological  question  whether 
one  of  the  Twelve  could  have  composed  such  a  compilation  as 
Q;  convincing  reasons  for  or  against  cannot  be  discovered. 
From  the  so-called  charge  to  the  Apostles  we  can  only  con- 
clude that  behind  the  written  record  there  stands  the  mem- 
ory of  an  apostolic  listener. 

This  much,  at  least,  must  be  granted.^  Harnack 
has  shown  that  the  estimate  of  Wellhausen  is 
untenable.^ 

Furthermore,  this  conclusion  finds  confirmation 
in  the  external  evidence.  Thus  far  in  our  discus- 
sion the  attempt  has  been  made  to  let  the  Gospels 
speak  for  themselves.  No  presuppositions  have 
been  introduced,  not  consciously  at  least,  from 
without.  Relying  solely  upon  this  internal  evi- 
dence, we  have  sought  to  reconstruct  the  source 
demanded  by  the  phenomena  observed  in  the 
non-Markan  material  common  to  Matthew  and 
Luke.  We  may  now  properly  ask  what  relation 
this  source  bears  to  Papias'  statement  regarding 

*  See  p.  249.  ^  See  pp.  136  ff. 


Apostolic  Origin  of  Common  Source       213 

the  logia  of  Matthew,  which  Eusebius  quoted, 
HisL,  III,  39. 

B.  W.  Bacon  has  carefully  discussed  this  passage 
in  the  article  "Logia  "  in  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the 
Gospels.  He  presents  the  view,  now  commonly 
held,  that  in  this  quotation  Papias  himself  referred 
to  the  canonical  Matthew,  and  he  has  also  made 
it  clear  that  ra  Xoyca  could  not  have  been  the  title 
of  a  first-century  collection  of  Jesus'  sayings.  This 
term.  Bacon  goes  on  to  argue,  was  substituted  by 
Papias  for  an  earlier  \6yoL.  Aoyot  was  the  term 
employed  by  Papias'  authority.  This  is  possible. 
But  we  must  remember  that  the  emphasis  here  is 
not  upon  TOL  \6yLa.  What  Papias  has  been  told 
is  not  that  Matthew  wrote  the  logia,  but  that  he 
wrote  in  Hebrew,  and  everyone  interpreted  as  he 
was  able.  One  must  therefore  be  careful  in  basing 
broad  conclusions  on  this  term.  Moreover,  if  it 
could  be  shown  that  the  title  of  the  writing  intended 
by  Papias'  authority  included  the  term  Xoyta  or 
\oyoi,  it  would  still  be  a  question  what  sort  of  a 
writing  was  thereby  implied.  At  any  rate,  it 
would  be  entirely  appropriate  to  the  source  which 
we    have    attempted    to    reconstruct.     But    this 


214  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

leads  only  into  the  region  of  conjecture.  Papias, 
himself,  knew  nothing  about  the  content  of  this 
Hebrew,  or  more  probably  Aramaic,  writing  of 
which  he  speaks.  He  has  supposed  the  canonical 
Matthew  to  be  one  of  its  translations.  But  he 
did  have  good  authority  for  believing  that  there 
had  been  some  Semitic  writing  associated  with  the 
Apostle  Matthew,  and  that  this  writing  was  some- 
how connected  with  the  First  Gospel. 

This  testimony,  which  is  confirmed  by  the 
unanimous  tradition  of  the  early  church,  has  its 
strongest  basis  in  the  very  title  of  the  Gospel. 
It  can  be  no  mere  arbitrary  choice  which  has  asso- 
ciated this  Gospel  with  the  obscure  disciple 
Matthew.  In  view  of  such  evidence,  there  is  a 
strong  probability  that  some  part  at  least  of  the 
Gospel  rests  upon  the  authority  of  Matthew. 
Now  if  from  the  Gospel  we  subtract  the  source 
Mark  and  the  source  Q,  there  is  nothing  left  which 
could  have  such  a  large  place  in  the  early  tradition. 
There  are,  indeed,  several  valuable  parables  and 
some  important  teachings,  but  no  fundamental, 
primitive  source  of  any  length  can  be  constructed 


Apostolic  Origin  of  Common  Source       215 

out  of  them.  The  First  Gospel  is  a  combination  of 
the  source  Q  with  Mark,  to  which  the  editor  has 
added  what  other  scattered  material  he  has  been 
able  to  find.  It  is  also  to  be  noticed  that  this  is 
true  of  Matthew  in  a  sense  in  which  it  cannot  be 
said  of  Luke.  There  also  Mark  and  Q  are  funda- 
mental sources,  but  Luke  has  other  sources  which 
he,  at  times  at  least,  even  prefers  to  Mark.  This 
is  certainly  the  case  in  the  Passion  narratives. 
Again,  while  Luke  has  practically  retained  the 
sequence  of  Q,  he  has  as  far  as  possible  trans- 
formed it  from  a  collection  of  sayings  to  a  narra- 
tive; Matthew,  on  the  other  hand,  despite  the 
complete  readjustment  of  the  material  into  new 
groups,  has  still  retained  the  dominant  interest  and 
form  of  Q.  .  If  now  the  tradition  of  the  church, 
whose  primitiveness  is  guaranteed,  not  only  by  the 
testimony  of  Papias,  but  by  the  title  of  the  Gospel, 
associates  the  First  Gospel  with  a  Hebrew  writing 
by  the  disciple  Matthew,  and  this  tradition  cannot 
have  its  justification  in  that  Gospel  as  we  have  it, 
we  naturally  look  to  the  source  Q  for  the  writing  of 
the    disciple.     Furthermore,    this    conclusion,    to 


2i6  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

which  the  external  evidence  points,  only  confirms 
the  impression  that  the  source  itself  makes  upon  us. 
This  mutual  support  of  external  and  internal 
evidence  is  our  justification  for  entithng  the  non- 
Markan  common  source  of  Matthew  and  Luke, 
"Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus." 


CHAPTER  IX 

MATTHEW'S  SAYINGS  OF  JESUS  AS 
RECONSTRUCTED 

In  any  such  reconstruction  of  a  source  as  has 
been  attempted  in  this  thesis,  much  must  be  left 
doubtful.  We  can  never  hope  to  restore  the  exact 
wording  of  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus.  Certain 
passages  of  Matthew  and  Luke  may  or  may  not 
have  belonged  to  this  source.  Detailed  results  are 
here  presented  merely  as  a  basis  for  future  discus- 
sion. By  having  the  material  before  him  as  a 
unit  the  reader  will  be  better  able  to  judge  the 
cogency  of  many  of  the  arguments  which  have 
been  urged. 

SECTION    I 

Matt.  3:7-10;  Luke  3:7-9. — (John  said  to  the 
multitudes  who  came  out  to  be  baptized  of  him), 
You  offspring  of  vipers,  who  warned  you  to  flee 
from  the  wrath  to  come?  Bring  forth  therefore 
fruit  worthy  of  repentance,  and  do  not  attempt^ 
to  say  within  yourselves,  We  have  Abraham  for 

»  Greek,  dp^rjade. 

217 


2i8  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

our  father,  for  I  say  to  you  that  God  can  of  these 
stones  raise  up  children  to  Abraham.  Even  now 
the  axe  is  laid  at  the  root  of  the  trees;  every  tree, 
therefore,  which  does  not  bear  fruit  is  hewn  down 
and  cast  into  the  fire. 

Matt.  3:11,  12;  Luke  3:i6&,  17. — I  baptize 
you  with  water,  but  he  who  comes  after  me  is 
mightier  than  I,  whose  sandals  I  am  not  worthy  to 
bear.  He  shall  baptize  you  (with  the  Holy  Spirit 
and)  with  fire;  his  winnowing  shovel  is  in  his  hand 
to  thoroughly  cleanse  his  threshing  floor,  and  to 
gather  his  wheat  into  the  granary,  but  the  chaff  he 
will  burn  up  with  unquenchable  fire.^ 

SECTION   2 

Matt.  4:1-11;  Luke  4:1-13. — (Jesus  was  led 
up  into  the  wilderness  by  the  spirit  to  be  tempted 
by  the  devil);  and  he  ate  nothing  forty  days  and 
forty  nights,  and  when  they  were  completed  he 
hungered.  The  devil  said  to  him.  If  thou  art  the 
Son  of  God,  command  that  this  stone  become 
bread.     He   answered   and    said.    It   is   written, 

*  It  is  necessary  to  assume  that  some  account  of  the  baptism  of 
Jesus  directly  followed  this,  introducing  Jesus  himself  to  the 
reader.    See  p.  140. 


Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus  219 

Man  shall  not  live  by  bread  alone.  Then  the 
devil  took  him  to  Jerusalem,  and  set  him  on  the 
pinnacle  of  the  temple,  and  said  to  him,  If  thou 
art  the  Son  of  God,  cast  thyself  down;  for  it  is 
written,  He  shall  give  his  angels  charge  concerning 
thee,  and,  on  their  hands  they  shall  bear  thee  up 
lest  thou  dash  thy  foot  against  a  stone.  Jesus 
answered  and  said  to  him.  It  is  also  written.  Thou 
shalt  not  tempt  the  Lord  thy  God.  Again  the  devil 
took  him  to  a  very  high  mountain,  and  showed 
him  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  and  their  glory, 
and  said  to  him,  All  these  things  will  I  give  thee, 
if  thou  wilt  worship  before  me.  Jesus  answered 
and  said  to  him.  It  is  written.  Thou  shalt  worship 
the  Lord  thy  God  and  Him  only  shalt  thou  serve. 
And  when  the  devil  had  completed  every  tempta- 
tion, he  departed  from  him. 

SECTION  3 

Matt.  5:1  ff.;  Luke  6:20-23. — (And  he  lifted 
up  his  eyes  on  his  disciples  and  said:)^  Blessed  are 

*  The  introduction  to  this  discourse  which  stood  in  Q  cannot 
be  restored.  Luke,  however,  certainly  stands  closer  to  the  com- 
mon source.  "Disciples"  here  as  elsewhere  in  Q  means  the 
larger  circle  of  followers,  not  the  Twelve  exclusively. 


220  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

ye  poor,  for  yours  is  the  Kingdom  of  God.  Blessed 
are  ye  hungry,  for  ye  shall  be  filled.  Blessed  are 
ye  who  weep,  for  ye  shall  laugh.  Blessed  are 
ye  when  they  shall  reproach  you  and  persecute  you 
and  say  all  manner  of  evil  against  you  for  my  sake. 
Rejoice  and  be  exceeding  glad,  for  great  is  your 
reward  in  heaven;  for  so  persecuted  they  the 
prophets  who  were  before  you. 

Matt.  5:39  ff.;  Luke  6:27-36. — I  say  to  you 
who  hear.  Love  your  enemies,^  and  pray  for  those 
who  despitefuUy  use  you.  Whoever  smites  you 
on  one  cheek  turn  to  him  the  other  also.  And  if 
anyone  would  take  away  thy  cloak,  let  him  have 
thy  coat  also.^  Give  to  him  who  asks  of  thee; 
and  from  him  who  would  borrow  of  thee  turn  not 
thou  away.  And  as  ye  would  that  men  should  do 
to  you  do  ye  also  to  them  likewise.  And  if  ye 
love  those  who  love  you,  what  reward  have  ye? 
Do  not  even  the  publicans  the  same?  And  if  ye 
salute  your  brethen  only  what  do  ye  more  than 

*  Luke's  addition  here  may  have  stood  in  Q:  "Do  good  to 
those  who  hate  you,  bless  those  who  curse  you." 

2  Matthew  here  adds  another  illustration,  "And  whoever  shall 
compel  thee  to  go  one  mile,  go  with  him  two." 


Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus  221 

others  ?  do  not  even  the  Gentiles  the  same  ?^  But 
love  your  enemies,  and  your  reward  shall  be 
great,  and  ye  shall  be  sons  of  the  Most  High;* 
for  he  causeth  his  sun  to  shine  on  the  evil  and 
the  good,  and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  the 
unjust.  Be  ye  therefore  merciful  as  your  Father 
is  merciful. 

Matt.  7:1  ff.;  Luke  6:37-49. — And  judge  not 
and  ye  shall  not  be  judged;  for  with  what  judgment 
ye  judge  ye  shall  be  judged,  and  with  what  measure 
ye  mete  it  shall  be  measured  to  you.  Wherefore 
beholdest  thou  the  mote  that  is  in  thy  brother's 
eye  but  regardest  not  the  beam  that  is  in  thine  own 
eye?  Or  how  wilt  thou  say  to  thy  brother,  Let 
me  cast  the  mote  out  of  thine  eye;  and  behold, 
the  beam  is  in  thine  own  eye?  Thou  hypocrite, 
first  cast  the  beam  out  of  thine  own  eye  and  then 
shalt  thou  see  clearly  to  cast  the  mote  out  of  thy 
brother's  eye.     For  there  is  no  good  tree  that 

^  Luke  seems  here  to  have  expanded  his  source,  interpreting 
it  very  appropriately. 

"  Harnack  thinks  that  rod  varphs  vfiQv  stood  in  Q,  but  without 
Matthew's  addition,  rod  iv  ovpavois,  which  hardly  suits  the 
context. 


222  Matthew* s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

beareth  corrupt  fruit,  nor  again  a  corrupt  tree 
that  beareth  good  fruit.  For  each  tree  is  known  by 
its  own  fruit.  For  of  thorns  they  do  not  gather 
figs,  nor  of  a  bramble  bush  gather  they  grapes. 
The  good  man  out  of  the  good  treasure  of  his  heart 
bringeth  forth  that  which  is  good,  and  the  evil  man 
out  of  the  evil  treasure  bringeth  forth  that  which  is 
evil.  For  out  of  the  abundance  of  the  heart  the 
mouth  speaketh. 

Why  do  ye  call  me.  Lord,  Lord,  and  do  not  the 
things  which  I  say?  Everyone  who  heareth  my 
words  and  doeth  them,  I  will  show  you  whom  he  is 
like.  He  is  like  a  man  who  built  his  house  upon 
the  rock.  And  the  rain  descended,  and  the  floods 
came,  and  the  winds  blew  and  beat  upon  that  house; 
and  it  fell  not,  for  it  had  been  founded  upon  the 
rock.  And  everyone  who  heareth  these  my  words 
and  doeth  them  not  is  like  a  man  who  built  his 
house  upon  the  sand.  And  the  rain  descended, 
and  the  floods  came,  and  the  winds  blew  and  beat 
upon  that  house;  and  it  fell,  and  great  was  the 
fall  thereof. 

And  it  came  to  pass,  when  he  finished  his  words, 
he  went  to  Capernaum. 


Matthew* s  Sayings  of  Jesus  223 

SECTION  4 

Matt.  8:5-10,  13;  Luke  7:1-10. — ^A  certain 
centurion's  servant  was  sick.^  (When  he  heard 
concerning  Jesus,  he  sent  to  him  elders  of  the 
Jews,  asking  him  to  come  and  save  his  servant. 
They  came  to  Jesus  and^  besought  him,  saying.  He 
is  worthy  that  thou  shouldest  do  this  for  him; 
for  he  loves  our  nation  and  he  built  the  synagogue 
for  us.  And  Jesus  went  with  them.  And  then, 
when  he  was  not  far  from  the  house,  the  centurion 
sent  friends,)  saying,  Lord,^  I  am  not  worthy  that 
thou  shouldest  come  under  my  roof;"*  but  only 
say  the  word  and  my  servant  shall  be  healed.  For 
I  myself  am  a  man  under  authority  with  soldiers 
under  me;  and  I  say  to  this  one,  Go,  and  he  goes; 

'  Matthew  defines  the  disease  as  irapoKvTiKbs,  but  this  term 
seems  to  be  very  loosely  employed  in  the  First  Gospel,  and  with- 
out the  support  of  Luke  cannot  be  credited  to  Q. 

2  tf-TTouSafws  is  not  a  characteristic  Lukan  term:  it  occurs  only 
here  in  Luke  or  Acts,  but  it  may  well  have  been  added  by  the 
evangelist  for  dramatic  effect. 

3  Luke  adds,  "Trouble  not  thyself."  But  Matthew  seems  to 
have  preserved  this  speech  of  the  centurion  very  carefully. 

4  Luke  adds,  "Wlierefore  neither  deemed  I  myself  worthy  to 
come  to  thee."  This  attributes  to  faith  what  was  more  probably 
due  to  respect  for  Jewish  prejudices. 


224  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

and  to  another,  Come  and  he  comes;  and  to  my 
servant,  Do  this,  and  he  does  it.  When  Jesus 
heard,  he  marvelled,  and  said  to  those  who  followed. 
Verily,^  I  say  to  you,  I  have  not  found  so  great 
faith,  no,  not  in  Israel.  And  they  who  were  sent, 
returning  to  the  house,  found  the  servant  whole.^ 

SECTION    5 

Matt.  11:2-19;  Luke  7:18-35. — John^  sum- 
moned two  of  his  disciples  and  sent  them  to  the 
Lord,  saying,  Art  thou  he  that  cometh  or  look  we 
for  another  ?  And  he  answered  and  said  to  them, 
Go  and  tell  John  the  things  which  ye  hear  and  see: 
the  blind  receive  their  sight,  and  the  lame  walk, 
the  lepers  are  cleansed,  and  the  deaf  hear,  and  the 
dead  are  raised,  and  the  poor  have  good  tidings 
preached  to  them.  And  blessed  is  he,  who  shall 
find  no  occasion  of  stumbling  in  me. 

»  ifi-ffv  seems  to  have  been  avoided  by  Luke.  He  frequently 
omits  it  from  Mark. 

'  This  last  verse  may  not  have  been  in  Q. 

5  Hamack  accepts  Matthew's  introduction  in  11:2.  But 
the  reference  to  John's  being  in  prison  preparing  for  the  narrative 
of  Mark  6:17-29,  and  the  phrase  tA  ip-ya  rod  xpt^'^'O"  are  cer- 
tainly editorial,  icjpioi  of  Luke  preserves  the  characteristic  Q 
designation  of  Jesus. 


Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus  225 

As  these  went  their  way,  he  began  to  say  to  the 
multitudes  concerning  John,  What  went  ye  out 
into  the  wilderness  to  behold?  a  reed  shaken  by 
the  wind?  But  what  went  ye  out  to  see?  a 
man  clothed  in  soft  raiment?  Behold  they  who 
wear  soft  raiment  are  in  king's  houses.  But  what 
went  ye  out  to  see  ?  a  prophet  ?  Yea,  I  say  to  you, 
and  much  more  than  a  prophet.  This  is  he  of 
whom  it  is  written,  Behold  I  send  my  messenger 
before  thy  face,  who  shall  prepare  thy  way  before 
thee.  Verily,  I  say  to  you.  Among  those  who  are 
born  of  women  tjiere  hath  not  arisen  a  greater  than 
John;  yet  he  that  is  least  in  the  Kingdom  of  God 
is  greater  than  he. 

To  what  shall  I  liken  this  generation  ?  and  what 
is  it  like  ?  It  is  like  children  sitting  in  the  market 
places,  who  call  to  their  fellows  and  say.  We  piped 
to  you  and  ye  did  not  dance;  we  wailed  and  ye  did 
not  mourn.  For  John  came  neither  eating  nor 
drinking,  and  ye  say,  He  hath  a  demon.  The  Son 
of  Man  came  eating  and  drinking,  and  ye  say. 
Behold  a  gluttonous  man  and  a  wine-bibber,  a 
friend  of  pubHcans  and  sinners!  But  wisdom  is 
justified  of  her  children. 


226  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

SECTION  6 

Matt.  8:19-22;  Luke  9:57-62. — One  came  and 
said  to  him :  I  will  follow  thee  wherever  thou  goest. 
And  Jesus  said  to  him,  The  foxes  have  holes,  and 
the  birds  of  the  heaven  have  nests,  but  the  Son 
of  Man  hath  not  where  to  lay  his  head.  And  he 
said  to  another.  Follow  me.  But  he  said.  Permit 
me  first  to  go  and  bury  my  father.  He  said  to  him, 
Leave  the  dead  to  bury  their  own  dead;  but  go 
thou  and  proclaim^  the  Kingdom  of  God.  (An- 
other also  said,^  I  will  follow  thee.  Lord:  but  first 
permit  me  to  bid  farewell  to  those  who  are  at  my 
house.  Jesus  said  to  him.  No  man,  having  put  his 
hand  to  the  plow,  and  looking  back,  is  fit  for  the 
Kingdom  of  God.) 

SECTION   7 

Matt.  9:35 — 10:15;  Luke  10:2-12. — (Jesus) 
said  to  his  disciples.  The  harvest  is  plenteous,  but 
the  laborers  are  few.  Pray  ye,  therefore,  the 
Lord  of  the  harvest  that  he  send  forth  laborers 

I  5ia77 AXw  is  probably  a  Lukan  substitute  for  the  more  com- 
mon KTjpiaau. 

^  This  third  saying  is  not  given  by  Matthew,  and  may  not  have 
stood  in  Q;  but  see  p.  46. 


Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus  227 

into  his  harvest.  And  Jesus  sent  (them)^  forth 
and  charged  them,  saying,  Go  not  into  any  way  of 
the  Gentiles,  and  enter  not  into  any  city  of  the 
Samaritans;  but  go  rather  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the 
house  of  Israel.  Carry  no  purse,  no  wallet,  no 
shoes,  and  salute  no  one  by  the  way.  As  ye  enter 
a  house,  first  say.  Peace  be  to  this  house.  And  if 
a  son  of  peace  be  there,  your  peace  shall  rest  upon 
him,  but  if  not,  it  shall  return  to  you.  Remain  in 
that  house,  eating  and  drinking  what  things  they 
give  you;  for  the  laborer  is  worthy  of  his  hire. 
Go  not  from  house  to  house.  And  into  whatever 
city  ye  enter  and  they  receive  you,  heal  the  sick 
therein  and  say  to  them,  The  Kingdom  of  God  is 
come  nigh  you.  But  into  whatever  city  ye  enter, 
and  they  receive  you  not,  go  out  into  its  streets  and 
say,  Even  the  dust  from  your  city  which  cleaves 
to  our  feet  we  wipe  off  against  you;  nevertheless, 
know  this,  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  nigh.  I 
say  to  you.  It  shall  be  more  tolerable  in  that  day 
for  Sodom,^  than  for  that  city. 

*  Matthew  here  has  substituted  "these  twelve,"  defining  the 
more  general  "disciples"  of  Q  in  accordance  with  Mark,  chap.  6. 

'"Sodom"  alone  makes  the  comparison  more  pointed,  but 
Matthew,  as  we  might  expect,  has  given  the  full  Old  Testament 
reference,  "the  land  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah." 


228  Matthew's  Sayings  oj  Jesus 

SECTION  8 

Matt.  11:21-23;  10:16;  Luke  10:13-16,  3. — 
Woe  to  thee,  Chorazin!  Woe  to  thee,  Bethsaida! 
for  if  in  Tyre  and  Sidon  the  mighty  works  had  been 
done,  which  were  done  in  you,  they  would  have 
repented  long  ago  in  sack-cloth  and  ashes.  But 
it  shall  be  more  tolerable  for  Tyre  and  Sidon  in  the 
judgment  than  for  you.  And  thou,  Capernaum, 
shalt  thou  be  exalted  to  heaven?  to  Hades  shalt 
thou  be  cast  down.  He  who  heareth  you  heareth 
me,  and  he  who  rejecteth  you  rejecteth  me,  and 
he  who  rejecteth  me  rejecteth  him  who  sent  me.' 
Go  your  way!  Behold  I  send  you  as  sheep  in  the 
midst  of  wolves.  Be  ye  therefore  wise  as  serpents 
and  harmless  as  doves. 

SECTION  9 

Luke  10:17-20. — And^  the  (disciples)  returned 
with  joy,  saying,  Lord,  even  the  demons  are  subject 
to  us  in  thy  name.  He  said  to  them,  I  beheld 
Satan  fallen  as  lightning  from  heaven.     Behold  I 

*  See  pp.  50  f .  for  the  insertion  of  this  verse  here. 

'  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  in  this  section  we  have  no  parallel 
in  Matthew  by  which  we  might  eliminate  minor  variations  of 
Luke. 


Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus  229 

have  given  you  authority  to  tread  on  serpents  and 
scorpions,  and  over  all  the  power  of  the  enemy,  and 
nothing  shall  in  any  wise  hurt  you.  But  in  this 
rejoice  not,  that  the  spirits  are  subject  to  you ;  but 
rejoice  rather  that  your  names  are  written  in 
heaven. 

SECTION   10 

Matt.  11:25-27;  Luke  10:21-22. — At  that 
time  Jesus  answered  and  said,  I  thank  thee,  O 
Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  that  thou  didst 
conceal  these  things  from  the  wise  and  prudent, 
and  reveal  them  to  babes.  Yea,  Father,  for  so  it 
was  well-pleasing  before  thee.  All  things  were 
delivered  to  me  by  my  Father,  and  no  one  knoweth 
the  Son  except  the  Father,  neither  knoweth  anyone 
the  Father  except  the  Son  and  he  to  whom  the 
Son  willeth  to  reveal  him. 

SECTION   II 

Matt.  13:16,  17;  Luke  10:23,  24. — (And  he 
said)  Blessed  are  the  eyes  which  see  what  ye  see. 
Verily  I  say  to  you  that  many  prophets  and  kings 
desired  to  see  what  ye  see  and  saw  not,  and  to  hear 
what  ye  hear  and  heard  not. 


230  Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

SECTION   12 

Matt.  6:9-12;  Luke  11:1-4. — C)ne  of  his  dis- 
ciples said  to  him,  Lord,  teach  us  to  pray,  as 
John  also  taught  his  disciples.  And  he  said  to 
them.  When  ye  pray,  say.  Father,  hallowed  be  thy 
name;  thy  Kingdom  come;  give  us  this  day  our 
daily  bread;  and  forgive  us  our  debts,  as  we  also 
have  forgiven  our  debtors;  and  lead  us  not  into 
temptation. 

Luke  II : 5-8. — ^And  he  said  to  them.  Who  of  you 
shall  have  a  friend  and  shall  go  to  him  at  midnight 
and  say  to  him.  Friend,  lend  me  three  loaves,  for  a 
friend  of  mine  has  come  to  me  from  a  journey,  and 
I  have  nothing  to  set  before  him.  And  he  from 
within  shall  answer  and  say,  Trouble  me  not; 
the  door  is  now  shut,  and  my  children  are  with 
me  in  bed;  I  cannot  rise  and  give  thee  ?  (Verily) 
I  say  to  you.  Though  he  will  not  rise  and  give 
him  because  he  is  his  friend,  yet  because  of  his 
importunity  he  will  arise  and  give  him  as  many 
as  he  needeth. 

Matt.  7:7-11;  Luke  11:9-13. — And  I  say  to 
you.  Ask  and  it  shall  be  given  you;  seek  and  ye 
shall  find;   knock  and  it  shall  be  opened  to  you. 


Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus  231 

For  every  one  who  asketh  receiveth,  and  he  who 
seeketh  findeth,  and  to  him  who  knocketh  it  shall 
be  opened.  Or  what  man  is  there  of  you,  who,  if 
his  son  shall  ask  him  for  a  loaf,  will  give  him  a 
stone  ?  Or  if  he  shall  ask  for  a  fish,  will  give  him 
a  serpent  ?  If  therefore  ye  who  are  evil  know  how 
to  give  good  gifts  to  your  children,  how  much  more 
shall  your  heavenly  Father  give  good  things  to  those 
who  ask  him. 

SECTION   13 

Matt.  12:22-30;  Luke  11:14-23. — ^And  he 
was  casting  out  a  demon,  which  was  dumb.^  And 
it  came  to  pass  that,  when  the  demon  went  out,  the 
dumb  man  spoke.  (And  the  multitudes  were 
amazed  and  said,  It  was  never  so  seen  in  Israel.^) 
But  some  of  them  said.  By  Beelzebul,  the  prince 
of  demons,  he  casts  out  demons.  Others,  trying 
him,  asked  of  him  a  sign  from  heaven.  He,  know- 
ing their  thoughts,  said  to  them.  Every  kingdom 
divided  against  itself  is  brought  to  desolation,  and 

*  The  Semitic  idiom  in  this  introduction  of  Luke,  *ca2  auxA, 
shows  that  he  here  preserves  Q. 

"This  sentence  is  added  from  Matt.  9:33  and  may  belong 
to  Q. 


232  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

house  falleth  upon  house.  If  Satan  also  is  divided 
against  himself,  how  shall  his  kingdom  stand  ?  for 
ye  say  that  by  Beelzebul  I  cast  out  demons.  If  I 
cast  out  demons  by  Beelzebul,  by  whom  do  your 
sons  cast  them  out?  Therefore  they  shall  be 
your  judges.  But  if  I  by  the  finger  of  God  cast 
out  demons,  then  is  the  Kingdom  of  God  come 
upon  you.  When  the  strong  man  fully  armed 
guardeth  his  own  court,  his  goods  are  in  peace; 
but  when  one  stronger  than  he  comes  and  conquers 
him,  he  takes  his  armor  wherein  he  trusted,  and 
distributes  his  spoils.  He  who  is  not  with  me  is 
against  me,  and  he  who  gathereth  not  with  me 
scattereth. 

SECTION   14 

Matt.  12:43-45;  Luke  11:24-26. — When  the 
unclean  spirit  has  come  out  from  the  man,  he 
passeth  through  waterless  places  seeking  rest  and 
findeth  it  not.  And  he  saith,  I  will  return  to  my 
house  whence  I  came  out.  He  cometh  and  findeth 
it  swept  and  garnished.  Then  he  goeth  and  taketh 
with  him  seven  spirits  more  evil  than  himself; 
and  they  enter  in  and  dwell  there;  and  the  last 
state  of  the  man  becometh  worse  than  the  first. 


Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus  233 

SECTION  15 

Matt.  12:39-42;  Luke  11:29-36. — (And  he 
said),  An  evil  and  adulterous  generation  seeketh 
a  sign,  and  no  sign  shall  be  given  to  it  but  the  sign 
of  Jonah.  For  even  as  Jonah  became  a  sign  to  the 
Ninevites,  so  shall  also  the  Son  of  Man  be  to  this 
generation.  The  men  of  Nineveh  shall  stand  up 
in  the  judgment  with  this  generation  and  condemn 
it;  for  they  repented  at  the  preaching  of  Jonah; 
and  behold  what  is  greater  than  Jonah  is  here. 
The  queen  of  the  South  shall  rise  up  in  the  judgment 
with  this  generation  and  condemn  it;  for  she 
came  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  to  hear  the  wisdom 
of  Solomon;  and  behold  what  is  greater  than 
Solomon  is  here. 

The  lamp  of  the  body  is  thine  eye.^    As  therefore 

thy  body,  when  it  hath  not  a  bright  lamp,  is  dark, 

so  when  the  lamp  shineth,  it  giveth  thee  Hght. 

Look  therefore  whether  the  light  that  is  in  thee  be 

not  darkness. 

SECTION   16 

Matt.  23:4ff.;  Luke  11:39-52. — And  the  Lord 
said.  Now  ye  Pharisees  cleanse  the  outside  of  the 
»  The  emended  text  of  Jiilicher  is  here  used. 


234  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

cup  and  the  platter,  but  your  inward  part  is  full  of 
extortion  and  wickedness.  Ye  foolish  ones,  did  not 
he  who  made  the  outside  make  the  inside  also?^ 
But  woe  to  you  Pharisees!  for  ye  tithe  mint  and 
anise  and  cummin,  and  have  neglected  the  weightier 
matters  of  the  law — ^justice,  and  mercy,  and  faith. 
Woe  to  you  Pharisees!  for  ye  love  the  chief  seats 
in  the  synagogues  and  the  greetings  in  the  market 
places.  Woe  to  you  (Pharisees)!  for  ye  are  as 
sepulchres  which  appear  not,  and  the  men  who 
walk  over  them  know  it  not. 

And  he  said.  Woe  to  you  scribes  also!  For  ye 
bind  heavy  burdens  and  lay  them  on  men's 
shoulders;  but  you  yourselves  will  not  move  them 
with  your  finger.  Woe  to  you  scribes!^  for  ye 
compass  the  sea  and  the  dry  land  to  make  one 
proselyte;  and  when  he  becomes  so,  ye  make  him 
twofold  more  a  son  of  Gehenna  than  yourselves. 
Woe  to  you  scribes!  for  ye  shut  the  Kingdom 
of   God  against   men.     You   yourselves  do   not 

^  Luke  1 1 :  41  has  been  omitted  in  the  text.  What,  if  anything, 
stood  here  in  Q  can  no  longer  be  determined.  Matt.  23:26 
seems  to  follow  some  other  source,  and  Luke  11:41  in  its  present 
form  cannot  be  original. 

'  Luke  1 1 :  45  may  have  stood  in  Q. 


Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus  235 

enter,  neither  do  ye  permit  those  who  come  to 
enter. 

(And  he  said),  Woe  to  you,  for  ye  build  the 
sepulchres  of  the  prophets  and  your  fathers  killed 
them.  So  ye  are  witnesses  and  sharers  in  the 
works  of  your  fathers.  For  they  killed  them  and 
ye  build  their  sepulchres.  Therefore,  also,  the 
Wisdom  of  God  said,  I  will  send  them  prophets 
and  wise  men  and  scribes,  and  some  of  them  they 
shall  kill  and  persecute;  that  the  blood  of  all  the 
prophets  which  has  been  shed  upon  the  earth  may 
come  upon  this  generation,  from  the  blood  of  Abel 
to  the  blood  of  Zachariah,  who  was  slain  between 
the  altar  and  the  sanctuary.  Verily  I  say  to  you, 
it  shall  be  required  of  this  generation. 

SECTION  17 
Matt.     10:24-33;     12:32;     Luke    12:1-12. — 
And  he  said  to  his  disciples.  Beware^  of  the  leaven 

^  It  may  be  that  Matthew  instead  of  Luke  preserves  here  what 
originally  stood  in  Q.  "A  disciple  is  not  above  his  teacher, 
neither  a  servant  above  his  master.  It  is  sufficient  for  the  dis- 
ciple that  he  become  as  his  teacher,  and  the  servant  as  his  lord. 
If  they  called  the  master  of  the  house  Beelzebul,  how  much  more 
those  of  his  household!" 


236  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

of  the  Pharisees  which  is  hypocrisy.'  There  is 
nothing  covered  which  shall  not  be  revealed,  and 
hidden  which  shall  not  be  known.  What  was  said 
in  the  darkness  shall  be  heard  in  the  light,  and 
what  was  heard  in  the  ear  shall  be  proclaimed  upon 
the  housetops.  And  fear  not  those  who  kill  the 
body  but  cannot  kill  the  soul.  Fear  rather  him 
who  can  destroy  both  soul  and  body  in  Gehenna. 
Are  not  five  sparrows  sold  for  two  pennies  ?  and  not 
one  of  them  shall  fall  to  the  ground  without  God. 
But  even  the  hairs  of  your  head  are  all  numbered. 
Fear  not  therefore;  ye  are  of  more  value  than 
many  sparrows.  Every  one  who  shall  confess  me 
before  men,  him  shall  also  the  Son  of  Man'  confess 
before  the  angels  of  God.  He  who  denieth  me 
before  men  shall  be  denied  before  the  angels  of 
God.  And  whoever  saith  anything  against  the 
Son  of  Man,  it  shall  be  fogriven  him;  but  against 
the  Holy  Spirit,  it  shall  not  be  forgiven.  And  when 
they  bring  you  before  the  synagogues,  and  the 
rulers,  and  the  authorities,  be  not  anxious  how  or 
what  ye  shall  answer,  or  what  ye  shall  say;    for 

» Matthew  here  has  "I"  for  "Son  of  Man."    This  may  be 
original. 


Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus  237 

the  Holy  Spirit  shall  teach  you  in  that  hour  what 
ye  ought  to  say. 

SECTION   18 

Matt.  6:19-21,  25-34;  Luke  12:22-34. — He 
said  to  his  disciples,  Therefore  I  say  to  you.  Be 
not  anxious  for  your  life,  what  ye  shall  eat;  nor 
for  your  body,  what  ye  shall  wear.  Is  not  the  life 
more  than  the  food  and  the  body  than  the  raiment  ? 
Behold  the  ravens,  that  they  sow  not,  neither  do 
they  reap  nor  gather  into  barns;  and  God  feedeth 
them.  Are  not  ye  of  much  more  value  than  they  ? 
Who  of  you  by  being  anxious  can  add  one  cubit  to 
the  measure  of  his  life  ?  And  why  are  ye  anxious 
about  raiment?  Consider  the  lilies,  how  they 
grow;  they  toil  not,  neither  do  they  spin.  But  I 
say  to  you  that  not  even  Solomon  in  all  his  glory 
was  arrayed  like  one  of  these.  If  God  doth  thus 
clothe  the  grass,  which  is  in  the  field  to-day  and 
to-morrow  is  cast  into  the  oven,  shall  he  not  much 
more  clothe  you,  O  ye  of  little  faith?  Be  not 
therefore  anxious,  saying.  What  shall  we  eat  ?  or, 
What  shall  we  drink  ?  or.  Wherewithal  shall  we  be 
clothed?  For  all  these  things  the  Gentiles  seek; 
for  your  Father  knoweth  that  ye  need  these  things. 


238  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

But  seek  his  kingdom  and  these  things  shall  be 
added  to  you.^  Fear  not,  little  flock,  for  it  is  your 
Father's  good  pleasure  to  give  you  the  kingdom. 
Lay  not  up  for  yourselves  treasures  upon  the  earth, 
where  moth  and  rust  consume,  and  where  thieves 
break  through  and  steal.  But  lay  up  for  your- 
selves treasures  in  heaven,  where  moth  and  rust  do 
not  consume,  and  where  thieves  do  not  break 
through  and  steal.  For  where  your  treasure  is, 
there  your  heart  will  be  also. 

SECTION  19 
Matt.  24:42-51;  Luke  12:35-46. — Let  your 
loins  be  girded  and  your  lamps  be  burning;  and 
be  ye  yourselves  like  men  waiting  for  their  lord, 
when  he  shall  return  from  the  marriage  feast; 
that,  when  he  cometh  and  knocketh,  they  may 
immediately  open  to  him.  Blessed  are  those 
servants,  whom  their  lord  when  he  cometh  shall 
find  watching.  And  if  he  shall  come  in  the  second 
watch,  and  if  in  the  third  watch,  and  shall  find 
them  so,  blessed  are  they. 

*  Matthew  adds,  "Therefore  be  not  anxious  for  the  morrow,  for 
the  morrow  will  be  anxious  for  itself;  sufficient  for  the  day  is  the 
evil  thereof."  This  probably  stood  in  Q,  but  it  is  hard  to  think 
that  it  was  there  in  exactly  the  same  context. 


Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus  239 

Know  this,  that  if  the  master  of  the  house  had 
known  in  what  watch  the  thief  was  coming,  he 
would  have  watched  and  he  would  not  have  per- 
mitted his  house  to  be  broken  through.  Therefore 
be  ye  also  ready,  for  in  an  hour  when  ye  think  not 
the  Son  of  Man  cometh. 

Who  then  is  the  faithful  and  prudent  servant, 
whom  his  lord  hath  placed  over  his  household  to 
give  them  their  portion  of  food  in  due  season? 
Blessed  is  that  servant,  whom  his  lord  when  he 
cometh  shall  find  so  doing.  Verily  I  say  to  you, 
that  he  will  place  him  over  all  his  possessions.  But 
if  that  servant  saith  in  his  heart.  My  lord  delayeth, 
and  shall  begin  to  beat  his  fellow-servants,  and  shall 
eat  and  drink  with  the  drunken;  the  lord  of  that 
servant  shall  come  on  a  day  when  he  expecteth  him 
not,  and  at  an  hour  when  he  knoweth  not,  and 
shall  cut  him  asunder,  and  appoint  his  portion 
with  the  unfaithful. 

SECTION   20 

Matt.   10:34-36;    Luke  12:51-53. — I  came  to 

send  fire  upon  the  earth,  and  how  I  wish  that  it 

were  already  kindled!    I  have  a  baptism  to  be 

baptized  with,  and  how  I  am  straitened  until  it  be 


240  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

accomplished !  Think  ye  that  I  came  to  send  peace 
upon  the  earth  ?  I  came  not  to  send  peace  but  a 
sword.  For  I  came  to  set  a  man  against  his  father, 
and  a  daughter  against  her  mother,  and  a  daughter- 
in-law  against  her  mother-in-law;  and  a  man's 
foes  shall  be  those  of  his  own  household.^ 

SECTIONS    21    AND    22 

Matt.  16:2,  3;  5:25,  26;  Luke  12:54-59.— 
And  he  said  to  the  multitudes.  When  ye  see  a  cloud 
rising  in  the  west,  straightway  ye  say,  A  shower 
is  coming,  and  so  it  cometh  to  pass.  And  when  ye 
see  a  south  wind  blowing,  ye  say.  There  will  be 
a  scorching  heat,  and  it  cometh  to  pass.  Ye 
hypocrites,  ye  knov/  how  to  judge  the  face  of  the 
heaven,  but  can  ye  not  judge  the  signs  of  the  times  ? 
And  why  even  of  yourselves  judge  ye  not  what  is 
right  ?  Agree  with  thine  adversary  quickly,  while 
thou  art  with  him  in  the  way,  lest  haply  the 
adversary  deliver  thee  to  the  judge,  and  the  judge 
deliver  thee  to  the  officer,  and  the  officer  cast  thee 
into  prison.  Verily  I  say  to  thee.  Thou  shalt  not 
come  out  thence,  till  thou  payest  the  last  farthing. 

*  This  last  clause  may  be  a  Matthean  addition  from  Mic.  7 : 6. 


Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus  241 

SECTION   23 

Luke  13:1-9. — Certain  ones^  told  him  of  the 
Galileans,  whose  blood  Pilate  had  mingled  with 
their  sacrifices.  And  he  answered  and  said  to  them, 
Think  ye  that  these  Galileans  were  sinners  above 
all  the  Galileans,  because  they  have  suffered  these 
things?  I  tell  you,  Nay;  but  except  ye  repent, 
ye  all  shall  likewise  perish.  Or  those  eighteen 
upon  whom  the  tower  in  Siloam  fell,  and  killed, 
think  ye  that  they  were  offenders  above  all  the 
men  who  dwell  in  Jerusalem?  I  tell  you,  Nay; 
but  except  ye  repent,  ye  all  shall  likewise  perish. 
And  he  spoke  this  parable.  A  certain  man  had  a 
fig  tree  planted  in  his  vineyard,  and  he  came  seeking 
fruit  thereon  and  he  found  none.  He  said  to  the 
vine  dresser,  Behold  these  three  years  I  come  seek- 
ing fruit  on  this  fig  tree,  and  find  none;  cut  it 
down;  why  doth  it  also  cumber  the  ground  ?  But 
he  answered  and  said  to  him.  Lord,  let  it  alone  this 
year  also,  till  I  shall  dig  about  it  and  dung  it;  and 
if  it  bear  fruit  henceforth,  well;  but  if  not,  thou 
shalt  cut  it  down. 

*  The  introductory  sentence  of  Q  can  only  be  conjectured. 


242  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

SECTION  24 

Matt.  13:31-33;  Luke  13:18-21. — And  he  said, 

What  is  the  Kingdom  of  God  like,  and  to  what 

shall  I  compare  it  ?    It  is  like  a  grain  of  mustard 

seed,  which  a  man  took  and  cast  into  his  field; 

and  it  grew  and  became  a  tree,  and  the  birds  of  the 

heaven    lodged    in    the    branches    thereof.    And 

again  he  said.  To  what  shall  I  liken  the  Kingdom 

of  God?    It  is  like  leaven,  which  a  woman  took 

and  hid  in  three  measures  of  meal,  till  it  was  all 

leavened. 

SECTION  25 

Matt.  7 :  13,  14;  Luke  13 :  23,  24.  (And  one  said 
to  him,  Lord,  are  they  few  that  are  saved  ?)'  He 
said  to  them.  Enter  in  by  the  narrow  gate:  for 
broad  and  wide  is  the  way  which  leadeth  to  destruc- 
tion, and  many  are  they  who  enter  thereby;  for 
narrow  is  the  gate  and  straitened  the  way  wliich 
leadeth  to  life,  and  few  are  they  who  find  it. 

Matt.  7:21-23;  Luke  13:25-27. — Many  shall 
say  to  me  in  that  day.  Lord,  did  we  not  eat  before 
thee,  and  drink,  and  didst  thou  not  teach  in  our 
streets  ?    Then  shall  I  confess  to  them,  I  tell  you, 

'  This  introductory  question  may  not  have  stood  in  Q. 


Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus  243 

I  know  not  whence  you  are,  depart  from  me,  all  ye 
who  work  iniquity. 

Matt.  8:11,  12;  Luke  13:28,  29. — There  shall 
be  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth,  when  ye  shall  see 
Abraham  and  Isaac  and  Jacob  and  all  the  prophets 
in  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  yourselves  cast  out. 
And  they  shall  come  from  the  east  and  west  and 
shall  sit  in  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

SECTION  26 
Matt.  23:37-39;  Luke  13:34,  35.— 0  Jerusalem, 
Jerusalem,  who  slayeth  the  prophets  and  stoneth 
those  who  are  sent  to  her !  how  often  would  I  have 
gathered  thy  children  together,  as  a  hen  ga there th 
her  chickens  under  her  wings,  and  ye  would  not! 
Behold  your  house  is  forsaken.  For  I  say  to  you, 
ye  shall  not  see  me  henceforth  until  ye  shall  say, 
Blessed  is  he  who  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord. 

SECTION  27 
Matt.  10:37-39;    Luke  14:25-35. — He  said  to 
the    multitudes,'    Whoever    doth    not    hate^    his 

^  Luke  has  probably  expanded  here  to  suit  his  context. 

»  Matthew  has  "love  more  than  me,"  which,  though  probably 
not  original,  is  a  correct  interpretation  of  the  stronger  term  of 
Luke. 


244  Matlhew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

father  and  mother  cannot  be  my  disciple,  and  who- 
ever doth  not  hate^  his  son  and  daughter  cannot  be 
my  disciple,  and  whoever  doth  not  take  his  cross 
and  follow  after  me,  cannot  be  my  disciple.  Who 
of  you,  wishing  to  build  a  tower,  doth  not  first 
sit  down  and  count  the  cost,  whether  he  have  where- 
with to  complete  it?  Lest  when  he  hath  laid  a 
foundation  and  is  unable  to  finish,  all  who  behold 
begin  to  mock  him,  saying,  This  man  began  to 
build  and  could  not  finish.  Or  what  king,  going 
to  engage  in  war  with  another  king,  will  not  first 
sit  down  and  take  counsel  whether  he  is  able  with 
ten  thousand  to  meet  one  who  cometh  against  him 
with  twenty  thousand?  Or  else,  while  the  other 
is  yet  far  off,  he  sendeth  an  embassy  and  asketh 
conditions  of  peace.  Salt  is  good,  but  if  even  the 
salt  hath  lost  its  savor,  wherewith  shall  it  be 
seasoned.  It  is  fit  neither  for  the  land  nor  for 
the  dunghill;  men  cast  it  out. 

SECTION   28 

Matt.  18:12-14;  Luke  15:3-10. — ^And  he  told 
them  this  parable,  saying,  What  man  of  you,  if  he 
have  a  hundred  sheep  and  one  of  them  go  astray, 

*See  footnote  2,  page  243. 


Matthew^s  Sayings  of  Jesus  245 

will  not  leave  the  ninety  and  nine  on  the  hills,  and 
go  and  seek  the  one  which  hath  strayed  ?  And  if 
he  happen  to  find  it  he  layeth  it  on  his  shoulders 
rejoicing.  And  when  he  cometh  home,  calleth  his 
friends  and  neighbors,  saying  to  them,  Rejoice 
with  me,  for  I  have  found  my  sheep  which  went 
astray. 

Or  what  woman,  if  she  have  ten  pieces  of  silver, 
if  she  lose  one  piece,  doth  not  light  a  lamp,  and 
sweep  the  house,  and  seek  diligently  until  she  find 
it?  And  when  she  findeth  it,  she  calleth  her 
friends  and  neighbors,  saying.  Rejoice  with  me, 
for  I  have  found  the  piece  which  I  lost. 

Matt.  6:24;  Luke  16:13. — No  one  can  serve 
two  masters:  for  either  he  will  hate  the  one  and 
love  the  other;  or  he  will  hold  to  the  one  and 
despise  the  -  other.  Ye  cannot  serve  God  and 
Mammon. 

Matt.  11:12,  13;  Luke  16: 16. — All  the  prophets 
and  the  law  prophesied  until  John ;  from  that  time 
until  now  the  Kingdom  of  God  suffereth  violence, 
and  men  of  violence  take  it  by  force.  And  if  you 
are  wilHng  to  receive  it,  he  is  Elias  who  is  about  to 
come. 


246  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

Matt.  5:18;  Luke  16:17. — It  is  easier  for 
heaven  and  earth  to  pass  away  than  for  one  jot  or 
tittle  of  the  law  to  fall. 

Matt.  5:32;  Luke  16:18. — Everyone  who 
putteth  away  his  wife  maketh  her  an  adulteress, 
and  whoever  shall  marry  her  who  is  put  away  com- 
mitteth  adultery. 

Matt.  18:6,  7;  Luke  17:1,  2. — It  is  impossible 
but  that  occasions  of  stumbling  should  come,  but 
woe  to  him  through  whom  they  come.  It  were 
profitable  for  him  that  a  millstone  should  be  hanged 
about  his  neck,  and  he  should  be  thrown  into  the 
sea,  rather  than  that  he  should  cause  one  of  these 
little  ones  to  stumble. 

Matt.  18:15,  21,  22;  Luke  17:3,  4. — Take  heed 
to  yourselves;  if  your  brother  sin  rebuke  him, 
and  if  he  repent  forgive  him.  And  if  he  sin 
against  thee  seven  times  a  day  and  seven  times 
turn  again  to  thee  saying,  I  repent;  thou  shalt 
forgive  him. 

Matt.  17:20;  Luke  17:5,  6. — If  ye  had  faith 
as  a  grain  of  mustard  seed,  ye  would  say  to  this 
sycamore.  Be  thou  rooted  up,  and  be  thou  planted 
in  the  sea;  and  it  would  obey  you. 


Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus  247 

(Luke  17 : 7-10  possibly  belongs  among  these  mis- 
cellaneous sayings.  Matt.  5:14;  7:6;  13:44-46; 
18:10  may  be  taken  from  Q,  but  their  original 
position  cannot  be  recovered.) 

SECTION   29 

Matt.  24:26-28;  Luke  17:20-25. — (They  asked 
him/  saying,  When  cometh  the  Kingdom  of  God  ? 
He  answered  them  and  said,  The  Kingdom  of  God 
cometh  not  with  observation;  neither  shall  they 
say,  Behold  here  or  there,  for  behold  the  Kingdom 
of  God  is  in  your  midst.^)  And  he  said  to  his 
disciples,  The  days  wall  come  when  ye  shall  desire 
to  see  one  of  the  days  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  ye 
shall  see  it  not.  And  they  will  say  to  you.  Behold 
he  is  in  the  wilderness;  go  not  forth.  Behold  he 
is  in  the  inner  chambers;  believe  it  not.  For  as 
the  lightning  cometh  out  from  the  east  and  is  seen 
even  to  the  west,  so  shall  the  Son  of  Man  be  in  his 
day.  Wherever  the  carcase  is,  there  will  the 
vultures  be   gathered   together.     But   first   it  is 

»Luke  reads  here,  "Being  asked  by  the  Pharisees."  But  it 
is  doubtful  whether  this  was  the  introduction  which  stood  in  Q. 

»0r,  "within  you." 


248  Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus 

necessary  that  he  suffer  many  things  and  be  re- 
jected of  this  generation. 

Matt.  24:37-41;  Luke  17:26-37. — And  just  as 
it  came  to  pass  in  the  days  of  Noah,  so  shall  it  be 
also  in  the  days  of  the  Son  of  Man.  For  as  in  the 
days  before  the  flood  they  were  eating  and  drink- 
ing, marrying  and  giving  in  marriage,  until  the  day 
Noah  entered  the  ark,  and  they  knew  not  until 
the  flood  came  and  took  them  all;  so  shall  it  be  on 
the  day  when  the  Son  of  Man  appeareth.  Like- 
wise^ even  as  in  the  days  of  Lot,  they  bought 
and  sold,  they  planted  and  builded  until  that  day 
when  Lot  went  out  of  Sodom,  and  they  knew  not 
until  it  rained  fire  and  brimstone  from  heaven 
and  destroyed  them  all,  so  shall  it  be  in  the  day 
when  the  Son  of  Man  appeareth.  There  shall  be 
two  men  in  the  field;  the  one  is  taken  and  the  one 
is  left.  Two  women  shall  be  grinding  at  the  mill; 
one  is  taken  and  one  is  left. 

SECTION  30 

Matt.  25:14-30;  Luke  19:11-28. — (And  he 
said),  It  is  as  when  a  man  going  into  a  far  country 

*  A  conjectural  restoration  of  the  Q  text  has  here  been 
attempted,  on  the  basis  of  the  Matthean  parallel  for  the  first 
comparison. 


Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus  249 

called  his  own  servants,  and  delivered  to  them  his 
goods.  And  to  one  he  gave  five  pounds,  to  another 
two,  to  another  one,  to  each  according  to  his  ability. 
After  a  long  time  the  lord  of  those  servants  cometh 
and  maketh  a  reckoning  with  them.  And  he  who 
received  the  five  pounds  came  and  brought  five 
other  pounds,  saying,  Lord,  thou  deliveredst  to  me 
five  pounds;  behold  I  have  gained  five  other 
pounds.  His  lord  said  to  him,  Well  done,  good 
servant,  thou  hast  been  faithful  over  a  few  things, 
I  will  set  thee  over  many  things;  enter  thou  into 
the  joy  of  thy  lord.  And  he  also  who  received  the 
two  pounds  came  and  said.  Lord,  thou  deUveredst 
to  me  two  pounds,  behold,  I  have  gained  two 
other  pounds.  His  lord  said  to  him,  Well  done, 
good  servant,  thou  hast  been  faithful  over  a  few 
things,  I  will  set  thee  over  many  things;  enter  thou 
into  the  joy.  of  thy  lord.  But  he  who  had  received 
the  one  pound  came  and  said.  Lord,  I  knew  thee, 
that  thou  art  a  hard  man,  reaping  where  thou  didst 
not  sow,  gathering  where  thou  didst  not  scatter; 
and  I  was  afraid  and  went  away  and  hid  thy 
talent  in  the  earth.  Behold  thou  hast  thine  own. 
And  his  lord  answered  and  said  to  him,  Thou 
wicked  servant,  thou  knewest  that  I  reap  where 


250  Matthew^ s  Sayings  of  Jesus 

I  did  not  sow,  that  I  gather  where  I  did  not  scatter; 
thou  oughtest  therefore  to  have  put  my  money  to 
the  bankers,  and  I  at  my  coming  should  have 
required  it  with  interest.  Take  ye  away  therefore 
from  him  the  pound,  and  give  it  to  him  who  hath 
ten  pounds.  For  to  everyone  who  hath  shall  be 
given,  but  from  him  who  hath  not,  even  that 
which  he  hath  shall  be  taken  away. 


Date  Due 

Kpl*'* 

I 

f) 

